<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_18_0123217</id>
	<title>Can We Really Tell Lossless From MP3?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258557060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>EddieSpinola writes <i>"Everyone knows that lossless codecs like FLAC produce better sounding music than lossy codecs like MP3. Well that's the theory anyway. The reality is that <a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2009/11/18/Sounds-Good-To-Me/p1">most of us can't tell the difference</a> between MP3 and FLAC. In this quick and dirty test, a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files. Very interesting, if slightly disturbing reading!"</i> Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded. The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EddieSpinola writes " Everyone knows that lossless codecs like FLAC produce better sounding music than lossy codecs like MP3 .
Well that 's the theory anyway .
The reality is that most of us ca n't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC .
In this quick and dirty test , a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files .
Very interesting , if slightly disturbing reading !
" Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended , lest you be blinded .
The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EddieSpinola writes "Everyone knows that lossless codecs like FLAC produce better sounding music than lossy codecs like MP3.
Well that's the theory anyway.
The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC.
In this quick and dirty test, a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files.
Very interesting, if slightly disturbing reading!
" Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.
The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140418</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258485840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flac in preference to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav for one main reason: You can't tag<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav, while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flac can be tagged, and then use a script that transfers those tags when I re-encode to whatever lossy format is needed.</p><p>And the fact that is it smaller is nice - disk bandwidth is only so much, and it helps to have smaller files when I do monthly backups or even checksum verification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use .flac in preference to .wav for one main reason : You ca n't tag .wav , while .flac can be tagged , and then use a script that transfers those tags when I re-encode to whatever lossy format is needed.And the fact that is it smaller is nice - disk bandwidth is only so much , and it helps to have smaller files when I do monthly backups or even checksum verification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use .flac in preference to .wav for one main reason: You can't tag .wav, while .flac can be tagged, and then use a script that transfers those tags when I re-encode to whatever lossy format is needed.And the fact that is it smaller is nice - disk bandwidth is only so much, and it helps to have smaller files when I do monthly backups or even checksum verification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140922</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>greg1104</author>
	<datestamp>1257066300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.  You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.</p></div><p>It's silliness like this that gives high-end audio a bad name.  I have a little gag I like to play on people who spew the whole "vinyl plays stuff that CD just can't" crowd.  I have some records I meticulously transferred from vinyl to CD using a decent quality sound card.  When people stop by to listen, I'll then fire that record up, then ask the vinyl fans what they think.  The usual raves about how awesome vinyl is come out: "notice how you can feel it with your body" etc, the stuff you're spewing.  Then comes the fun part:  I lift the tonearm and the music keeps on going, because I was playing the CD version the whole time!</p><p>There's something about the sound of vinyl that is fun to listen to.  Do not confuse this with technical superiority in any dimension; it's just distortion people seem to like.  The vinyl record is incapable of even matching the frequency extremes possible with CD audio, and the idea that goes beyond them is indefensible.  Whatever form of vinyl distortion you prefer is quite easy to capture onto digital, fully preserved.  Shoot, the last time I ran into Michael Fremer at a show, he had some CD-Rs he'd made from a turntable that costs more than my car, and was demonstrating how close to the original they sounded.  People were returning to the room trying to figure out when the turntable got installed it was so obviously great vinyl sound--easily stored at 16 bits/44.1Khz</p><p>Most of my serious listening is done on SACD or DVD-A; now that's real fidelity beyond what a CD is capable of, approaching the quality of the original analog master tape.  I once sat in a room comparing such a master tape against a real-time 24/96K and 16/44.1K converted versions, single-blind.  I had no problem identifying which was which.  Guess what?  Most of the people in the room preferred the CD version and presumed it was the original master tape as a result, even though to me it was easy to pick out as the worst of the lot.  People like the kind of distortion they grew up with; used to be vinyl, then it was crappy CD mastering artifacts, and now we've moved onto people liking MP3 distortion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
You ca n't hear this data , but you can feel it , physically with your body.It 's silliness like this that gives high-end audio a bad name .
I have a little gag I like to play on people who spew the whole " vinyl plays stuff that CD just ca n't " crowd .
I have some records I meticulously transferred from vinyl to CD using a decent quality sound card .
When people stop by to listen , I 'll then fire that record up , then ask the vinyl fans what they think .
The usual raves about how awesome vinyl is come out : " notice how you can feel it with your body " etc , the stuff you 're spewing .
Then comes the fun part : I lift the tonearm and the music keeps on going , because I was playing the CD version the whole time ! There 's something about the sound of vinyl that is fun to listen to .
Do not confuse this with technical superiority in any dimension ; it 's just distortion people seem to like .
The vinyl record is incapable of even matching the frequency extremes possible with CD audio , and the idea that goes beyond them is indefensible .
Whatever form of vinyl distortion you prefer is quite easy to capture onto digital , fully preserved .
Shoot , the last time I ran into Michael Fremer at a show , he had some CD-Rs he 'd made from a turntable that costs more than my car , and was demonstrating how close to the original they sounded .
People were returning to the room trying to figure out when the turntable got installed it was so obviously great vinyl sound--easily stored at 16 bits/44.1KhzMost of my serious listening is done on SACD or DVD-A ; now that 's real fidelity beyond what a CD is capable of , approaching the quality of the original analog master tape .
I once sat in a room comparing such a master tape against a real-time 24/96K and 16/44.1K converted versions , single-blind .
I had no problem identifying which was which .
Guess what ?
Most of the people in the room preferred the CD version and presumed it was the original master tape as a result , even though to me it was easy to pick out as the worst of the lot .
People like the kind of distortion they grew up with ; used to be vinyl , then it was crappy CD mastering artifacts , and now we 've moved onto people liking MP3 distortion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.It's silliness like this that gives high-end audio a bad name.
I have a little gag I like to play on people who spew the whole "vinyl plays stuff that CD just can't" crowd.
I have some records I meticulously transferred from vinyl to CD using a decent quality sound card.
When people stop by to listen, I'll then fire that record up, then ask the vinyl fans what they think.
The usual raves about how awesome vinyl is come out: "notice how you can feel it with your body" etc, the stuff you're spewing.
Then comes the fun part:  I lift the tonearm and the music keeps on going, because I was playing the CD version the whole time!There's something about the sound of vinyl that is fun to listen to.
Do not confuse this with technical superiority in any dimension; it's just distortion people seem to like.
The vinyl record is incapable of even matching the frequency extremes possible with CD audio, and the idea that goes beyond them is indefensible.
Whatever form of vinyl distortion you prefer is quite easy to capture onto digital, fully preserved.
Shoot, the last time I ran into Michael Fremer at a show, he had some CD-Rs he'd made from a turntable that costs more than my car, and was demonstrating how close to the original they sounded.
People were returning to the room trying to figure out when the turntable got installed it was so obviously great vinyl sound--easily stored at 16 bits/44.1KhzMost of my serious listening is done on SACD or DVD-A; now that's real fidelity beyond what a CD is capable of, approaching the quality of the original analog master tape.
I once sat in a room comparing such a master tape against a real-time 24/96K and 16/44.1K converted versions, single-blind.
I had no problem identifying which was which.
Guess what?
Most of the people in the room preferred the CD version and presumed it was the original master tape as a result, even though to me it was easy to pick out as the worst of the lot.
People like the kind of distortion they grew up with; used to be vinyl, then it was crappy CD mastering artifacts, and now we've moved onto people liking MP3 distortion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142190</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1257083400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Untill you do ABX test between vinyl and proper digital recording (at CD specs; it <i>shouldn't</i> contain those "inadible but important" details that you claim are there...) of that same vinyl, you are full of superiotity self-deception crap.</p><p>Hint: such tests were also made. Self-proclaimed audophiles can't tell the difference.</p><p>PS. Just contemplate this<br>you are relativelly old (since you grew up when vinyls were all the rage, apparently). There's <b>no f#$\%^ng way</b> your hearing can be better than teens of today. You <b>can't</b> hear the frequencies they <b>can</b>. You have <b>worse</b> hearing. Nobody can escape that.<br>One might at most train oneself to activelly notice the differences that other ignore (not because they can't really hear it per se). Couple that with bias towards thing from our younger years...and there's you you "audiphilism"</p><p>Also, stop with the crap of "music was simply better then". That's also looking at your youth with rose glasses. There's unimaginable amount of great music being created nowadays. It's just way too often swamped with crap...<b>as was always the case</b> (you just don't remember that, you remember only the good stuff)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Untill you do ABX test between vinyl and proper digital recording ( at CD specs ; it should n't contain those " inadible but important " details that you claim are there... ) of that same vinyl , you are full of superiotity self-deception crap.Hint : such tests were also made .
Self-proclaimed audophiles ca n't tell the difference.PS .
Just contemplate thisyou are relativelly old ( since you grew up when vinyls were all the rage , apparently ) .
There 's no f # $ \ % ^ ng way your hearing can be better than teens of today .
You ca n't hear the frequencies they can .
You have worse hearing .
Nobody can escape that.One might at most train oneself to activelly notice the differences that other ignore ( not because they ca n't really hear it per se ) .
Couple that with bias towards thing from our younger years...and there 's you you " audiphilism " Also , stop with the crap of " music was simply better then " .
That 's also looking at your youth with rose glasses .
There 's unimaginable amount of great music being created nowadays .
It 's just way too often swamped with crap...as was always the case ( you just do n't remember that , you remember only the good stuff )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Untill you do ABX test between vinyl and proper digital recording (at CD specs; it shouldn't contain those "inadible but important" details that you claim are there...) of that same vinyl, you are full of superiotity self-deception crap.Hint: such tests were also made.
Self-proclaimed audophiles can't tell the difference.PS.
Just contemplate thisyou are relativelly old (since you grew up when vinyls were all the rage, apparently).
There's no f#$\%^ng way your hearing can be better than teens of today.
You can't hear the frequencies they can.
You have worse hearing.
Nobody can escape that.One might at most train oneself to activelly notice the differences that other ignore (not because they can't really hear it per se).
Couple that with bias towards thing from our younger years...and there's you you "audiphilism"Also, stop with the crap of "music was simply better then".
That's also looking at your youth with rose glasses.
There's unimaginable amount of great music being created nowadays.
It's just way too often swamped with crap...as was always the case (you just don't remember that, you remember only the good stuff)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142482</id>
	<title>the right tool for the job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you know the music you'll be able to tell.  any decent set of headphones or a properly amplified loudspeakers should show the evidence of compression.  I've been using SHN/FLAC since my post DAT trading days of GD tapes.  If you appreciate your music and don't want to miss anything the artist intended for you to hear then stay away from the mp3 format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you know the music you 'll be able to tell .
any decent set of headphones or a properly amplified loudspeakers should show the evidence of compression .
I 've been using SHN/FLAC since my post DAT trading days of GD tapes .
If you appreciate your music and do n't want to miss anything the artist intended for you to hear then stay away from the mp3 format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you know the music you'll be able to tell.
any decent set of headphones or a properly amplified loudspeakers should show the evidence of compression.
I've been using SHN/FLAC since my post DAT trading days of GD tapes.
If you appreciate your music and don't want to miss anything the artist intended for you to hear then stay away from the mp3 format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139168</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy a nice pair of monitors for $400 and the differences are easy to tell. I sort of wish I hadnt because my lower encoded music  256kbps sounds awful compared to 320/flac</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a nice pair of monitors for $ 400 and the differences are easy to tell .
I sort of wish I hadnt because my lower encoded music 256kbps sounds awful compared to 320/flac</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy a nice pair of monitors for $400 and the differences are easy to tell.
I sort of wish I hadnt because my lower encoded music  256kbps sounds awful compared to 320/flac</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142060</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers. Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again, no matter by what method.</p><p>To tell the difference between compressed versions one should start with an uncompressed source. And for a person to be able to hear a difference in two versions, they should already be familiar with the original in uncompressed form so they can try to say whether one sounds more like the original than the other (the alternative being both sound worse or both sound like it). If they have no clue what it's supposed to sound like, any attempt to say which sounds better is badly broken due to having no reference with which to compare them.</p></div><p>You are somewhat confusing compression of the audio's dynamic range (a directly intended effect of intervention by a mixing or mastering engineer) with the audio artifacts introduced by compression of a digital data stream using a psychoacoustic model (ie mp3 encoding). Whilst it is possible that the latter may exacerbate the former to a small degree, it mainly achieves its bit-saving by throwing away the least audible frequencies in a complex signal. As the bitrate is lowered beyond X kbps (somewhere between 128 and 256 for average listener and averagely complex audio) the encoder has to start chucking away stuff and simplifying the parts of the signal that we're actually paying attention to.</p><p>Many modern recordings are much better at fooling listeners at lower bit-rates, not because of dynamic range compression at the mastering stage, but because they are recorded and mixed so cleanly that the encoder's job is made easy. With only two or three audio events happening at a time (think modern pop/techno) and a lack of background tape hiss, the psychoacoustic model works brilliantly. Now encode a vintage audience recording of a rock gig at the same bitrate and the added complexity of a real drum kit plus several instruments with complex harmonics and distortion all bleeding into vocal mics plus feedback, audience chatter and tape hiss make the psychoacoustic model fall over. That's what Courtney Love was struggling to get across when she wrote about mp3 being only good enough for techno back in the days of naughty Napster.</p><p>So you're not totally wrong - it's not dynamic range compression (the loudness wars) that makes data compression transparent - it's the fact that modern music is produced to be less psycho-acoustically demanding overall.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers .
Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you ca n't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again , no matter by what method.To tell the difference between compressed versions one should start with an uncompressed source .
And for a person to be able to hear a difference in two versions , they should already be familiar with the original in uncompressed form so they can try to say whether one sounds more like the original than the other ( the alternative being both sound worse or both sound like it ) .
If they have no clue what it 's supposed to sound like , any attempt to say which sounds better is badly broken due to having no reference with which to compare them.You are somewhat confusing compression of the audio 's dynamic range ( a directly intended effect of intervention by a mixing or mastering engineer ) with the audio artifacts introduced by compression of a digital data stream using a psychoacoustic model ( ie mp3 encoding ) .
Whilst it is possible that the latter may exacerbate the former to a small degree , it mainly achieves its bit-saving by throwing away the least audible frequencies in a complex signal .
As the bitrate is lowered beyond X kbps ( somewhere between 128 and 256 for average listener and averagely complex audio ) the encoder has to start chucking away stuff and simplifying the parts of the signal that we 're actually paying attention to.Many modern recordings are much better at fooling listeners at lower bit-rates , not because of dynamic range compression at the mastering stage , but because they are recorded and mixed so cleanly that the encoder 's job is made easy .
With only two or three audio events happening at a time ( think modern pop/techno ) and a lack of background tape hiss , the psychoacoustic model works brilliantly .
Now encode a vintage audience recording of a rock gig at the same bitrate and the added complexity of a real drum kit plus several instruments with complex harmonics and distortion all bleeding into vocal mics plus feedback , audience chatter and tape hiss make the psychoacoustic model fall over .
That 's what Courtney Love was struggling to get across when she wrote about mp3 being only good enough for techno back in the days of naughty Napster.So you 're not totally wrong - it 's not dynamic range compression ( the loudness wars ) that makes data compression transparent - it 's the fact that modern music is produced to be less psycho-acoustically demanding overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers.
Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again, no matter by what method.To tell the difference between compressed versions one should start with an uncompressed source.
And for a person to be able to hear a difference in two versions, they should already be familiar with the original in uncompressed form so they can try to say whether one sounds more like the original than the other (the alternative being both sound worse or both sound like it).
If they have no clue what it's supposed to sound like, any attempt to say which sounds better is badly broken due to having no reference with which to compare them.You are somewhat confusing compression of the audio's dynamic range (a directly intended effect of intervention by a mixing or mastering engineer) with the audio artifacts introduced by compression of a digital data stream using a psychoacoustic model (ie mp3 encoding).
Whilst it is possible that the latter may exacerbate the former to a small degree, it mainly achieves its bit-saving by throwing away the least audible frequencies in a complex signal.
As the bitrate is lowered beyond X kbps (somewhere between 128 and 256 for average listener and averagely complex audio) the encoder has to start chucking away stuff and simplifying the parts of the signal that we're actually paying attention to.Many modern recordings are much better at fooling listeners at lower bit-rates, not because of dynamic range compression at the mastering stage, but because they are recorded and mixed so cleanly that the encoder's job is made easy.
With only two or three audio events happening at a time (think modern pop/techno) and a lack of background tape hiss, the psychoacoustic model works brilliantly.
Now encode a vintage audience recording of a rock gig at the same bitrate and the added complexity of a real drum kit plus several instruments with complex harmonics and distortion all bleeding into vocal mics plus feedback, audience chatter and tape hiss make the psychoacoustic model fall over.
That's what Courtney Love was struggling to get across when she wrote about mp3 being only good enough for techno back in the days of naughty Napster.So you're not totally wrong - it's not dynamic range compression (the loudness wars) that makes data compression transparent - it's the fact that modern music is produced to be less psycho-acoustically demanding overall.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139924</id>
	<title>My eyes are bleeding...</title>
	<author>digmshiphter</author>
	<datestamp>1258481340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The warning about using adblock was definitely warranted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The warning about using adblock was definitely warranted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The warning about using adblock was definitely warranted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144084</id>
	<title>Of course not...</title>
	<author>endus</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The market for "home theater in a box" systems is proof positive that most people have terrible ears.  The vast majority of consumer level audio equipment is just straight up garbage.  My favorite is when people go on about how the "reviews are really good on this system!!!"...yea...reviews written by people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about.  I see pictures of people's home theater setups...uneven speaker placement...rear channels set in front of the listener or even just strewn randomly about the room...and yet they say it sounds "awesome".
<br> <br>
Yea, I'm an elitist, and I suppose it is good for those people that they can get by with cheap, junky, plastic equipment tossed randomly into the room.  As an elitist, though, it just annoys the ever-loving shit out of me.  I don't mind it too much for grandma and people that legitimately don't care...its just the people who get all hyped up like they actually know something that drives me crazy.
<br> <br>
I can definitely tell the difference between compressed and not.  The difference is readily apparently to me, though admittedly I have not run a FLAC/MP3 comparison...it's been mostly MP3 versus CD.  I should probably try the FLAC comparison some time, just to see.  I'm definitely not anti-MP3 either...its pretty much all I listen to in the car.  I guess I am willing to make some compromises for convenience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The market for " home theater in a box " systems is proof positive that most people have terrible ears .
The vast majority of consumer level audio equipment is just straight up garbage .
My favorite is when people go on about how the " reviews are really good on this system ! ! !
" ...yea...reviews written by people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about .
I see pictures of people 's home theater setups...uneven speaker placement...rear channels set in front of the listener or even just strewn randomly about the room...and yet they say it sounds " awesome " .
Yea , I 'm an elitist , and I suppose it is good for those people that they can get by with cheap , junky , plastic equipment tossed randomly into the room .
As an elitist , though , it just annoys the ever-loving shit out of me .
I do n't mind it too much for grandma and people that legitimately do n't care...its just the people who get all hyped up like they actually know something that drives me crazy .
I can definitely tell the difference between compressed and not .
The difference is readily apparently to me , though admittedly I have not run a FLAC/MP3 comparison...it 's been mostly MP3 versus CD .
I should probably try the FLAC comparison some time , just to see .
I 'm definitely not anti-MP3 either...its pretty much all I listen to in the car .
I guess I am willing to make some compromises for convenience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The market for "home theater in a box" systems is proof positive that most people have terrible ears.
The vast majority of consumer level audio equipment is just straight up garbage.
My favorite is when people go on about how the "reviews are really good on this system!!!
"...yea...reviews written by people who have absolutely no fucking idea what they are talking about.
I see pictures of people's home theater setups...uneven speaker placement...rear channels set in front of the listener or even just strewn randomly about the room...and yet they say it sounds "awesome".
Yea, I'm an elitist, and I suppose it is good for those people that they can get by with cheap, junky, plastic equipment tossed randomly into the room.
As an elitist, though, it just annoys the ever-loving shit out of me.
I don't mind it too much for grandma and people that legitimately don't care...its just the people who get all hyped up like they actually know something that drives me crazy.
I can definitely tell the difference between compressed and not.
The difference is readily apparently to me, though admittedly I have not run a FLAC/MP3 comparison...it's been mostly MP3 versus CD.
I should probably try the FLAC comparison some time, just to see.
I'm definitely not anti-MP3 either...its pretty much all I listen to in the car.
I guess I am willing to make some compromises for convenience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</id>
	<title>I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>Cowclops</author>
	<datestamp>1258475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been saying this for years - it is not hard to reach a point where an MP3 is indistinguishable from the uncompressed source, "even if you have top notch equipment and well-practiced hearing skills."</p><p>It is basically scale of bitrate vs odds that the recording will be indistinguishable at that bitrate.</p><p>My personal experience tells me that most songs are audibly degraded at 128kbps, some songs are audibly degraded at 160kbps, few songs are audibly degraded at 192kbps, and nothing I've yet experienced is audibly degraded at 256kbps. And this is being conservative... with a superior modern codec like LAME, MP3 may be even harder to distinguish at 128kbps than you might expect. Other codecs besides MP3 could be even better, but I don't have enough experience with other codecs, so I can't comment there. Plus, VBR makes the situation even better. You could have a lower average bitrate but still achieve a signal thats indistinguishable from the original with VBR.</p><p>Nonetheless, I just rip all my music as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav now for archiving. To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs, because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp. An $80 1TB hard drive can hold $19,000 worth of uncompressed CDs. Sure... in flac format I could store more like $60,000 worth... but who has a $20,000 CD collection let alone a $60,000 one?</p><p>Anyway, the primary counterarguments I've heard are either from neurotic audiophiles that think "mathematically lossy" means "audibly lossy." People from that same category justify multi-thousand-dollar power cables to their amplifier and claim night and day differences, so their opinions can safely be ignored.</p><p>The other end of the fence says low bitrate stuff sounds "perfect." In my experience when presented with a reasonable comparison, even audio-ignorant people can tell the difference between a crap 128kbit mp3 and the original, but that difference might not be immediately obvious on, for example, built-in laptop speakers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying this for years - it is not hard to reach a point where an MP3 is indistinguishable from the uncompressed source , " even if you have top notch equipment and well-practiced hearing skills .
" It is basically scale of bitrate vs odds that the recording will be indistinguishable at that bitrate.My personal experience tells me that most songs are audibly degraded at 128kbps , some songs are audibly degraded at 160kbps , few songs are audibly degraded at 192kbps , and nothing I 've yet experienced is audibly degraded at 256kbps .
And this is being conservative... with a superior modern codec like LAME , MP3 may be even harder to distinguish at 128kbps than you might expect .
Other codecs besides MP3 could be even better , but I do n't have enough experience with other codecs , so I ca n't comment there .
Plus , VBR makes the situation even better .
You could have a lower average bitrate but still achieve a signal thats indistinguishable from the original with VBR.Nonetheless , I just rip all my music as .wav now for archiving .
To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs , because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp .
An $ 80 1TB hard drive can hold $ 19,000 worth of uncompressed CDs .
Sure... in flac format I could store more like $ 60,000 worth... but who has a $ 20,000 CD collection let alone a $ 60,000 one ? Anyway , the primary counterarguments I 've heard are either from neurotic audiophiles that think " mathematically lossy " means " audibly lossy .
" People from that same category justify multi-thousand-dollar power cables to their amplifier and claim night and day differences , so their opinions can safely be ignored.The other end of the fence says low bitrate stuff sounds " perfect .
" In my experience when presented with a reasonable comparison , even audio-ignorant people can tell the difference between a crap 128kbit mp3 and the original , but that difference might not be immediately obvious on , for example , built-in laptop speakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying this for years - it is not hard to reach a point where an MP3 is indistinguishable from the uncompressed source, "even if you have top notch equipment and well-practiced hearing skills.
"It is basically scale of bitrate vs odds that the recording will be indistinguishable at that bitrate.My personal experience tells me that most songs are audibly degraded at 128kbps, some songs are audibly degraded at 160kbps, few songs are audibly degraded at 192kbps, and nothing I've yet experienced is audibly degraded at 256kbps.
And this is being conservative... with a superior modern codec like LAME, MP3 may be even harder to distinguish at 128kbps than you might expect.
Other codecs besides MP3 could be even better, but I don't have enough experience with other codecs, so I can't comment there.
Plus, VBR makes the situation even better.
You could have a lower average bitrate but still achieve a signal thats indistinguishable from the original with VBR.Nonetheless, I just rip all my music as .wav now for archiving.
To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs, because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp.
An $80 1TB hard drive can hold $19,000 worth of uncompressed CDs.
Sure... in flac format I could store more like $60,000 worth... but who has a $20,000 CD collection let alone a $60,000 one?Anyway, the primary counterarguments I've heard are either from neurotic audiophiles that think "mathematically lossy" means "audibly lossy.
" People from that same category justify multi-thousand-dollar power cables to their amplifier and claim night and day differences, so their opinions can safely be ignored.The other end of the fence says low bitrate stuff sounds "perfect.
" In my experience when presented with a reasonable comparison, even audio-ignorant people can tell the difference between a crap 128kbit mp3 and the original, but that difference might not be immediately obvious on, for example, built-in laptop speakers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</id>
	<title>Ugh</title>
	<author>TrekkieGod</author>
	<datestamp>1258477020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music. Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion, their system is great.</p></div><p>Most people have known for decades that audiophiles are full of crap.  Every single time I've seen a double-blind test to see if they can hear the difference on what they claim they can hear, turns out they can't.  Hey, good for the people selling them $1,000 audio cables.</p><p>That said, there's a good reason to go with FLAC.  Want to re-encode a lower quality version for your storage-space-limited device?  You can do that without additional quality loss, just like re-ripping from the cd.  Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates?  Again, go ahead.</p><p>Basically, it's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless, because you can re-encode it into the lossless codec of your choice for whatever device you want without introducing further artifacts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners can not discern excellent from mediocre music .
Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion , their system is great.Most people have known for decades that audiophiles are full of crap .
Every single time I 've seen a double-blind test to see if they can hear the difference on what they claim they can hear , turns out they ca n't .
Hey , good for the people selling them $ 1,000 audio cables.That said , there 's a good reason to go with FLAC .
Want to re-encode a lower quality version for your storage-space-limited device ?
You can do that without additional quality loss , just like re-ripping from the cd .
Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates ?
Again , go ahead.Basically , it 's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless , because you can re-encode it into the lossless codec of your choice for whatever device you want without introducing further artifacts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.
Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion, their system is great.Most people have known for decades that audiophiles are full of crap.
Every single time I've seen a double-blind test to see if they can hear the difference on what they claim they can hear, turns out they can't.
Hey, good for the people selling them $1,000 audio cables.That said, there's a good reason to go with FLAC.
Want to re-encode a lower quality version for your storage-space-limited device?
You can do that without additional quality loss, just like re-ripping from the cd.
Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates?
Again, go ahead.Basically, it's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless, because you can re-encode it into the lossless codec of your choice for whatever device you want without introducing further artifacts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142056</id>
	<title>Encoders ARE improving ffs...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1257081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's your possible and much simpler explanation for prefering MP3's more and more. There is a large difference between recent LAME and...whatever people were using at the turn of millenium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's your possible and much simpler explanation for prefering MP3 's more and more .
There is a large difference between recent LAME and...whatever people were using at the turn of millenium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's your possible and much simpler explanation for prefering MP3's more and more.
There is a large difference between recent LAME and...whatever people were using at the turn of millenium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143004</id>
	<title>Try Radiohead to hear the difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first decided I could hear the difference when listening to the first few seconds of Radiohead's <i>Airbag</i> in lossless and encoded at different MP3 bitrates.  The bells sound more defined at each incremented rate, but the different between even 320Kbps MP3 and lossless is incredible.  I started ripping in FLAC and haven't turned back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first decided I could hear the difference when listening to the first few seconds of Radiohead 's Airbag in lossless and encoded at different MP3 bitrates .
The bells sound more defined at each incremented rate , but the different between even 320Kbps MP3 and lossless is incredible .
I started ripping in FLAC and have n't turned back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first decided I could hear the difference when listening to the first few seconds of Radiohead's Airbag in lossless and encoded at different MP3 bitrates.
The bells sound more defined at each incremented rate, but the different between even 320Kbps MP3 and lossless is incredible.
I started ripping in FLAC and haven't turned back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30156462</id>
	<title>say what - huh?</title>
	<author>jimofoz</author>
	<datestamp>1258646820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the main point here is that the one person who did hear the difference is probably the only one who hasn't fried his ears with an overabundance of DBs. It's going to be interesting watching all you young'ns join us deaf old geezers saying "huh?" while you're still in your 20s and 30s.

My years on an air force flight line with jets taking off left and right now seem downright quiet compared to your ear buds and honking horn automobile stereos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main point here is that the one person who did hear the difference is probably the only one who has n't fried his ears with an overabundance of DBs .
It 's going to be interesting watching all you young'ns join us deaf old geezers saying " huh ?
" while you 're still in your 20s and 30s .
My years on an air force flight line with jets taking off left and right now seem downright quiet compared to your ear buds and honking horn automobile stereos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main point here is that the one person who did hear the difference is probably the only one who hasn't fried his ears with an overabundance of DBs.
It's going to be interesting watching all you young'ns join us deaf old geezers saying "huh?
" while you're still in your 20s and 30s.
My years on an air force flight line with jets taking off left and right now seem downright quiet compared to your ear buds and honking horn automobile stereos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139126</id>
	<title>Not very surprising.</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1258475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never been able to hear the difference but my hearing isn't great and I'm not a music person so I wasn't completely sure. But this isn't that surprising. Note how the audiophile community has so many strange ideas about what sounds better that James Randi has actually bothered to include some of their claims as acceptable for his million dollar challenge (this is  a prize if you can demonstrate supernatural or paranormal abilities under controlled conditions- <a href="http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html" title="randi.org">http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html</a> [randi.org]). See for example <a href="http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/752-get-real.html" title="randi.org">http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/752-get-real.html</a> [randi.org]. However, a large part of the audiophile community has rejected digital sound as somehow innately inferior and so won't even care about TFA. It is never so surprising how irrational humans can be so much as what they choose to be irrational about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been able to hear the difference but my hearing is n't great and I 'm not a music person so I was n't completely sure .
But this is n't that surprising .
Note how the audiophile community has so many strange ideas about what sounds better that James Randi has actually bothered to include some of their claims as acceptable for his million dollar challenge ( this is a prize if you can demonstrate supernatural or paranormal abilities under controlled conditions- http : //www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html [ randi.org ] ) .
See for example http : //www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/752-get-real.html [ randi.org ] .
However , a large part of the audiophile community has rejected digital sound as somehow innately inferior and so wo n't even care about TFA .
It is never so surprising how irrational humans can be so much as what they choose to be irrational about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been able to hear the difference but my hearing isn't great and I'm not a music person so I wasn't completely sure.
But this isn't that surprising.
Note how the audiophile community has so many strange ideas about what sounds better that James Randi has actually bothered to include some of their claims as acceptable for his million dollar challenge (this is  a prize if you can demonstrate supernatural or paranormal abilities under controlled conditions- http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html [randi.org]).
See for example http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/752-get-real.html [randi.org].
However, a large part of the audiophile community has rejected digital sound as somehow innately inferior and so won't even care about TFA.
It is never so surprising how irrational humans can be so much as what they choose to be irrational about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140288</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>tabrnaker</author>
	<datestamp>1258484460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they need is to do the studies with musicians who play instruments like flutes, trumpets and violins.  Once you've worked your ear to the point to hear the subtle differences in tone and pitch needed to play the instruments accurately and have to constantly monitor that sound as you play, even 320kbps sounds like crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they need is to do the studies with musicians who play instruments like flutes , trumpets and violins .
Once you 've worked your ear to the point to hear the subtle differences in tone and pitch needed to play the instruments accurately and have to constantly monitor that sound as you play , even 320kbps sounds like crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they need is to do the studies with musicians who play instruments like flutes, trumpets and violins.
Once you've worked your ear to the point to hear the subtle differences in tone and pitch needed to play the instruments accurately and have to constantly monitor that sound as you play, even 320kbps sounds like crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145280</id>
	<title>Re:Ya this was a horrible test</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257097740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One problem is the simple A/B and asking which people like better. Well that is fine if you are doing something like testing two compression formats to see which has a sound people prefer.</p></div><p>And sometimes that is exactly what's needed, especially if you're trying to fit a given amount of music into a bit budget. At some point, you know it's going to be non-transparent enough that tin ears can ABX it every time, yet you often don't need more than 64 kbps to make, say, the background music in a handheld video game enjoyable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem is the simple A/B and asking which people like better .
Well that is fine if you are doing something like testing two compression formats to see which has a sound people prefer.And sometimes that is exactly what 's needed , especially if you 're trying to fit a given amount of music into a bit budget .
At some point , you know it 's going to be non-transparent enough that tin ears can ABX it every time , yet you often do n't need more than 64 kbps to make , say , the background music in a handheld video game enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem is the simple A/B and asking which people like better.
Well that is fine if you are doing something like testing two compression formats to see which has a sound people prefer.And sometimes that is exactly what's needed, especially if you're trying to fit a given amount of music into a bit budget.
At some point, you know it's going to be non-transparent enough that tin ears can ABX it every time, yet you often don't need more than 64 kbps to make, say, the background music in a handheld video game enjoyable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141926</id>
	<title>It's the same with audio equipment</title>
	<author>daffmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1257079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As many people have said, a lot of this is just what you are used to.</p><p>An anecdotal tale from my previous life as a shop-floor assistant at a hi-fi store. We used to sell cheap consumer stuff alongside the serious amps and speakers but probably about a quarter of my customers genuinely preferred the sound coming from a cheap boombox to a more serious setup. It'd make my ears bleed it was so bad but it was the sort of sound they were used to and they liked it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As many people have said , a lot of this is just what you are used to.An anecdotal tale from my previous life as a shop-floor assistant at a hi-fi store .
We used to sell cheap consumer stuff alongside the serious amps and speakers but probably about a quarter of my customers genuinely preferred the sound coming from a cheap boombox to a more serious setup .
It 'd make my ears bleed it was so bad but it was the sort of sound they were used to and they liked it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As many people have said, a lot of this is just what you are used to.An anecdotal tale from my previous life as a shop-floor assistant at a hi-fi store.
We used to sell cheap consumer stuff alongside the serious amps and speakers but probably about a quarter of my customers genuinely preferred the sound coming from a cheap boombox to a more serious setup.
It'd make my ears bleed it was so bad but it was the sort of sound they were used to and they liked it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141058</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1257068220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad that a tube amp cannot play all those frequencies you mentioned accurately (because of distortion and output transformers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad that a tube amp can not play all those frequencies you mentioned accurately ( because of distortion and output transformers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad that a tube amp cannot play all those frequencies you mentioned accurately (because of distortion and output transformers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>enoz</author>
	<datestamp>1258480320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.  You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.  This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive.</p>  </div><p>Let me guess, you're using some of those "danceable" speaker cables?</p><p>What I don't get is why audiophiles are so into claiming vinyl sounds better than CD because it has greater frequency range, but at the same time ignore other digital recording formats support up to 96kHz (such as SACD/DVD-Audio)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
You ca n't hear this data , but you can feel it , physically with your body .
This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive .
Let me guess , you 're using some of those " danceable " speaker cables ? What I do n't get is why audiophiles are so into claiming vinyl sounds better than CD because it has greater frequency range , but at the same time ignore other digital recording formats support up to 96kHz ( such as SACD/DVD-Audio ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.
This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive.
Let me guess, you're using some of those "danceable" speaker cables?What I don't get is why audiophiles are so into claiming vinyl sounds better than CD because it has greater frequency range, but at the same time ignore other digital recording formats support up to 96kHz (such as SACD/DVD-Audio)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</id>
	<title>You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>searleb</author>
	<datestamp>1258478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.</p></div><p>
I'll start by saying that I'm an audiophile.  I have an all vacuum tube, several thousand dollar stereo that I hand built from source to speakers.  I still prefer to buy music on vinyl.  If I had the disposable cash, I'd buy it on reel-to-reel tape.
<br> <br>
That said, the parent has accidentally stumbled upon the correct answer.  FLAC, MP3, OGG, whatever-- <b>if you want higher quality, then listen to BETTER MUSIC</b>.
<br> <br>
The most important part of high quality music is the musician.  The second is the engineer.  Beyond that, everything is just incremental gains.  Audiophiles know this and spend their energy getting the right recording of the music they love.  And I'm not just talking about old stodgy stuff.  There's tons of great new music released new on vinyl geared towards audiophiles-- it's just all labeled "indie".
<br> <br>
Let me spend half a minute on vinyl vs CD vs MP3.  CD and MP3 contain data that your ears can hear and they both contain that data very accurately.  I certainly can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 recorded at 192 KBPS.  Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.  You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.  This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive.  Anyone can hear and feel this, but usually they can't describe it or perhaps even notice it.  They show the difference by not wanting to get up and do dishes, or homework, or play a game, but by wanting to sit and close their eyes and just listen to the music.
<br> <br>
Forty years ago people used to sit down and listen to albums.  <b>Albums</b>!  The reason why we don't do it anymore is NOT because of a lack of time or high quality new music-- we have both those things.  It's because the music doesn't engage us anymore.  It simply doesn't contain the data to make us forget that we're listening to a recording.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners can not discern excellent from mediocre music .
I 'll start by saying that I 'm an audiophile .
I have an all vacuum tube , several thousand dollar stereo that I hand built from source to speakers .
I still prefer to buy music on vinyl .
If I had the disposable cash , I 'd buy it on reel-to-reel tape .
That said , the parent has accidentally stumbled upon the correct answer .
FLAC , MP3 , OGG , whatever-- if you want higher quality , then listen to BETTER MUSIC .
The most important part of high quality music is the musician .
The second is the engineer .
Beyond that , everything is just incremental gains .
Audiophiles know this and spend their energy getting the right recording of the music they love .
And I 'm not just talking about old stodgy stuff .
There 's tons of great new music released new on vinyl geared towards audiophiles-- it 's just all labeled " indie " .
Let me spend half a minute on vinyl vs CD vs MP3 .
CD and MP3 contain data that your ears can hear and they both contain that data very accurately .
I certainly ca n't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 recorded at 192 KBPS .
Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
You ca n't hear this data , but you can feel it , physically with your body .
This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive .
Anyone can hear and feel this , but usually they ca n't describe it or perhaps even notice it .
They show the difference by not wanting to get up and do dishes , or homework , or play a game , but by wanting to sit and close their eyes and just listen to the music .
Forty years ago people used to sit down and listen to albums .
Albums ! The reason why we do n't do it anymore is NOT because of a lack of time or high quality new music-- we have both those things .
It 's because the music does n't engage us anymore .
It simply does n't contain the data to make us forget that we 're listening to a recording .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.
I'll start by saying that I'm an audiophile.
I have an all vacuum tube, several thousand dollar stereo that I hand built from source to speakers.
I still prefer to buy music on vinyl.
If I had the disposable cash, I'd buy it on reel-to-reel tape.
That said, the parent has accidentally stumbled upon the correct answer.
FLAC, MP3, OGG, whatever-- if you want higher quality, then listen to BETTER MUSIC.
The most important part of high quality music is the musician.
The second is the engineer.
Beyond that, everything is just incremental gains.
Audiophiles know this and spend their energy getting the right recording of the music they love.
And I'm not just talking about old stodgy stuff.
There's tons of great new music released new on vinyl geared towards audiophiles-- it's just all labeled "indie".
Let me spend half a minute on vinyl vs CD vs MP3.
CD and MP3 contain data that your ears can hear and they both contain that data very accurately.
I certainly can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 recorded at 192 KBPS.
Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.
This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive.
Anyone can hear and feel this, but usually they can't describe it or perhaps even notice it.
They show the difference by not wanting to get up and do dishes, or homework, or play a game, but by wanting to sit and close their eyes and just listen to the music.
Forty years ago people used to sit down and listen to albums.
Albums!  The reason why we don't do it anymore is NOT because of a lack of time or high quality new music-- we have both those things.
It's because the music doesn't engage us anymore.
It simply doesn't contain the data to make us forget that we're listening to a recording.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140338</id>
	<title>FLAC is gapless - MP3 is not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258484880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw your frequency analysis. A loud *CLICK* between movements of a symphony or string quartet is exactly what some of us don't need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw your frequency analysis .
A loud * CLICK * between movements of a symphony or string quartet is exactly what some of us do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw your frequency analysis.
A loud *CLICK* between movements of a symphony or string quartet is exactly what some of us don't need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141416</id>
	<title>How much is the recording?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is the recording? After all they compress the sound now to make it sound louder to sell it so it's likely in this case that FLAC would have nothing that couldn't be thrown out with MP3 and still be lossless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is the recording ?
After all they compress the sound now to make it sound louder to sell it so it 's likely in this case that FLAC would have nothing that could n't be thrown out with MP3 and still be lossless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is the recording?
After all they compress the sound now to make it sound louder to sell it so it's likely in this case that FLAC would have nothing that couldn't be thrown out with MP3 and still be lossless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139656</id>
	<title>I can't taste my beer</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1258479000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC."</p><p>The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between Bud Lite and real beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The reality is that most of us ca n't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC .
" The reality is that most of us ca n't tell the difference between Bud Lite and real beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC.
"The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between Bud Lite and real beer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146676</id>
	<title>No info on decoder or driver used</title>
	<author>UBfusion</author>
	<datestamp>1257103560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all mp3 decoding listening is equal.</p><p>I admit I read TFA in a hurry, but I think I didn't see any mention of the decoder used or the driver/sound codec combination. These factors are critical for any listening test. Specifically, I'd like to know:</p><p>a) Did the soundcard/drivers used upsample 44.1 kHz to 48 KHz or not? Usually resampling is the norm with either Creative or with cheapo codecs/driver combinations. I never used Vista, but from what I've read, few people know precisely what happens at the OS lever regarding bit-accurate audio playback.</p><p>b) Was a garden variety mp3 decoder used, or a high-end one like libmad or MAD Winamp Plugin v.0.2b (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=60454) supporting 24/32-bit output, sophisticated dithering etc?</p><p>If the answer to a) is 'no' and the answer to b) is 'yes', then according to my experience, I find the results very reasonable, mp3 can indeed sound better than plain old CD 16/44.1 or lossless formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all mp3 decoding listening is equal.I admit I read TFA in a hurry , but I think I did n't see any mention of the decoder used or the driver/sound codec combination .
These factors are critical for any listening test .
Specifically , I 'd like to know : a ) Did the soundcard/drivers used upsample 44.1 kHz to 48 KHz or not ?
Usually resampling is the norm with either Creative or with cheapo codecs/driver combinations .
I never used Vista , but from what I 've read , few people know precisely what happens at the OS lever regarding bit-accurate audio playback.b ) Was a garden variety mp3 decoder used , or a high-end one like libmad or MAD Winamp Plugin v.0.2b ( http : //www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php ? showtopic = 60454 ) supporting 24/32-bit output , sophisticated dithering etc ? If the answer to a ) is 'no ' and the answer to b ) is 'yes ' , then according to my experience , I find the results very reasonable , mp3 can indeed sound better than plain old CD 16/44.1 or lossless formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all mp3 decoding listening is equal.I admit I read TFA in a hurry, but I think I didn't see any mention of the decoder used or the driver/sound codec combination.
These factors are critical for any listening test.
Specifically, I'd like to know:a) Did the soundcard/drivers used upsample 44.1 kHz to 48 KHz or not?
Usually resampling is the norm with either Creative or with cheapo codecs/driver combinations.
I never used Vista, but from what I've read, few people know precisely what happens at the OS lever regarding bit-accurate audio playback.b) Was a garden variety mp3 decoder used, or a high-end one like libmad or MAD Winamp Plugin v.0.2b (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=60454) supporting 24/32-bit output, sophisticated dithering etc?If the answer to a) is 'no' and the answer to b) is 'yes', then according to my experience, I find the results very reasonable, mp3 can indeed sound better than plain old CD 16/44.1 or lossless formats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141800</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL wow... keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. You are wrong though.</p><p>How do you feel ultra high freq sounds? Do you feel the sound a dog whistle makes? You cannot feel those vibrations, I'm sorry.</p><p>Vinyl cannot reproduce ultra low freq sounds at all. I dunno what you are "feeling" but its not from the vinyl, thats for sure. Probably just distortion and artifacts created by your crap equipment, because you are listening to a crap format. Oh well. Enjoy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL wow... keep telling yourself that , if it makes you feel better .
You are wrong though.How do you feel ultra high freq sounds ?
Do you feel the sound a dog whistle makes ?
You can not feel those vibrations , I 'm sorry.Vinyl can not reproduce ultra low freq sounds at all .
I dunno what you are " feeling " but its not from the vinyl , thats for sure .
Probably just distortion and artifacts created by your crap equipment , because you are listening to a crap format .
Oh well .
Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL wow... keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.
You are wrong though.How do you feel ultra high freq sounds?
Do you feel the sound a dog whistle makes?
You cannot feel those vibrations, I'm sorry.Vinyl cannot reproduce ultra low freq sounds at all.
I dunno what you are "feeling" but its not from the vinyl, thats for sure.
Probably just distortion and artifacts created by your crap equipment, because you are listening to a crap format.
Oh well.
Enjoy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140320</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258484760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A CD is only 150KB/sec (1200kbps), which is pretty streamable now.  Especially if you use FLAC to reduce it.  A good reason for higher lossy compression is streaming from my home PC to my iPhone instead of storing my music on my iPhone.</p><p>Until LTE is here for phones.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A CD is only 150KB/sec ( 1200kbps ) , which is pretty streamable now .
Especially if you use FLAC to reduce it .
A good reason for higher lossy compression is streaming from my home PC to my iPhone instead of storing my music on my iPhone.Until LTE is here for phones .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A CD is only 150KB/sec (1200kbps), which is pretty streamable now.
Especially if you use FLAC to reduce it.
A good reason for higher lossy compression is streaming from my home PC to my iPhone instead of storing my music on my iPhone.Until LTE is here for phones.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141140</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Nomaxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1257069360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I buy music on vinyl too. But today's mixers are digital so when you plug in your turntable, sound is processed through a DSP at 24-bit 96kHz on mainstream club mixers (like the DJM-800) or 32-bit on high-end equipment. Many say that digital mixers sound better than analog ones but the truth is that records simply sound different, not better, it's an illusion.

As for MP3, I can just tell that OGG sampled at the same bit rate sound better than MP3. Too bad most portable music players/car radios don't support it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I buy music on vinyl too .
But today 's mixers are digital so when you plug in your turntable , sound is processed through a DSP at 24-bit 96kHz on mainstream club mixers ( like the DJM-800 ) or 32-bit on high-end equipment .
Many say that digital mixers sound better than analog ones but the truth is that records simply sound different , not better , it 's an illusion .
As for MP3 , I can just tell that OGG sampled at the same bit rate sound better than MP3 .
Too bad most portable music players/car radios do n't support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I buy music on vinyl too.
But today's mixers are digital so when you plug in your turntable, sound is processed through a DSP at 24-bit 96kHz on mainstream club mixers (like the DJM-800) or 32-bit on high-end equipment.
Many say that digital mixers sound better than analog ones but the truth is that records simply sound different, not better, it's an illusion.
As for MP3, I can just tell that OGG sampled at the same bit rate sound better than MP3.
Too bad most portable music players/car radios don't support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159626</id>
	<title>As a young Engineer.</title>
	<author>Damn The Torpedoes</author>
	<datestamp>1258656480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>     A current debate among Audio Engineers (what I do for a living) is how one should mix music. With the majority of the market listening to music on mp3 (typically of lower quality compression), engineers question whether or not they should actually mix to make mp3's sound better. Currently, an old-guard engineer will find a good mix that translates to all sounds systems. That mix will then be rendered down for CD quality. Either before or after this step (most of the time after), the song is converted to mp3 form for digital distribution.
     The new school of engineer argues that with mp3's dominating the market, an effort should be made to ensure that albums are mixed to sound good in mp3, and to avoid the digital artifacts that can be heard when a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav file is compressed (sounds like gurgling, but very subtle). Another argument is whether or not albums should even be mixed primarily for sound system translation! (translation = the mix one hears on one's home monitors sounds the same, or translates, to another speaker system). Newer engineers argue that earbuds are becoming more and more used, even more so than speaker systems! Thus, shouldn't audio be mixed primarily for headphone listening?

Personally, I can hear the difference between a high-quality wave or flac file, and an mp3. I try and get 320kbps mp3 format, simply because difference is lesser. Sure I can hear it, but listening like an Audio Engineer and listening like a regular joe are two different mindsets. When I'm listening to the music, I'm not listening to the gurgling sound that results from mp3 downconversion/compression.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A current debate among Audio Engineers ( what I do for a living ) is how one should mix music .
With the majority of the market listening to music on mp3 ( typically of lower quality compression ) , engineers question whether or not they should actually mix to make mp3 's sound better .
Currently , an old-guard engineer will find a good mix that translates to all sounds systems .
That mix will then be rendered down for CD quality .
Either before or after this step ( most of the time after ) , the song is converted to mp3 form for digital distribution .
The new school of engineer argues that with mp3 's dominating the market , an effort should be made to ensure that albums are mixed to sound good in mp3 , and to avoid the digital artifacts that can be heard when a .wav file is compressed ( sounds like gurgling , but very subtle ) .
Another argument is whether or not albums should even be mixed primarily for sound system translation !
( translation = the mix one hears on one 's home monitors sounds the same , or translates , to another speaker system ) .
Newer engineers argue that earbuds are becoming more and more used , even more so than speaker systems !
Thus , should n't audio be mixed primarily for headphone listening ?
Personally , I can hear the difference between a high-quality wave or flac file , and an mp3 .
I try and get 320kbps mp3 format , simply because difference is lesser .
Sure I can hear it , but listening like an Audio Engineer and listening like a regular joe are two different mindsets .
When I 'm listening to the music , I 'm not listening to the gurgling sound that results from mp3 downconversion/compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     A current debate among Audio Engineers (what I do for a living) is how one should mix music.
With the majority of the market listening to music on mp3 (typically of lower quality compression), engineers question whether or not they should actually mix to make mp3's sound better.
Currently, an old-guard engineer will find a good mix that translates to all sounds systems.
That mix will then be rendered down for CD quality.
Either before or after this step (most of the time after), the song is converted to mp3 form for digital distribution.
The new school of engineer argues that with mp3's dominating the market, an effort should be made to ensure that albums are mixed to sound good in mp3, and to avoid the digital artifacts that can be heard when a .wav file is compressed (sounds like gurgling, but very subtle).
Another argument is whether or not albums should even be mixed primarily for sound system translation!
(translation = the mix one hears on one's home monitors sounds the same, or translates, to another speaker system).
Newer engineers argue that earbuds are becoming more and more used, even more so than speaker systems!
Thus, shouldn't audio be mixed primarily for headphone listening?
Personally, I can hear the difference between a high-quality wave or flac file, and an mp3.
I try and get 320kbps mp3 format, simply because difference is lesser.
Sure I can hear it, but listening like an Audio Engineer and listening like a regular joe are two different mindsets.
When I'm listening to the music, I'm not listening to the gurgling sound that results from mp3 downconversion/compression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143672</id>
	<title>Why CBR?</title>
	<author>ZipR</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a bummer that they didn't use 192kpbs VBR LAME files. VBR is where LAME really shines nowadays...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a bummer that they did n't use 192kpbs VBR LAME files .
VBR is where LAME really shines nowadays.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a bummer that they didn't use 192kpbs VBR LAME files.
VBR is where LAME really shines nowadays...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143758</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1257091920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be plain-as-day obvious as soon as you get to to any white noise section (like say clapping or crowd noise and hear that characteristic squeagle.  (I'm making up a word here, but if there already is a word for it, I hope someone posts it.)</p><p>And although those sections of a song are less important (unless you bought the "live performance" tracks...), they're glaringly apparent.  I'd bet you can hear the error even in 256 kbps audio.  So, any practical comparison must, imo, avoid tracks with "white noise" that has any structure (e.g. clapping, crowd noise,  snare drum section, etc.) as degenerate cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be plain-as-day obvious as soon as you get to to any white noise section ( like say clapping or crowd noise and hear that characteristic squeagle .
( I 'm making up a word here , but if there already is a word for it , I hope someone posts it .
) And although those sections of a song are less important ( unless you bought the " live performance " tracks... ) , they 're glaringly apparent .
I 'd bet you can hear the error even in 256 kbps audio .
So , any practical comparison must , imo , avoid tracks with " white noise " that has any structure ( e.g .
clapping , crowd noise , snare drum section , etc .
) as degenerate cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be plain-as-day obvious as soon as you get to to any white noise section (like say clapping or crowd noise and hear that characteristic squeagle.
(I'm making up a word here, but if there already is a word for it, I hope someone posts it.
)And although those sections of a song are less important (unless you bought the "live performance" tracks...), they're glaringly apparent.
I'd bet you can hear the error even in 256 kbps audio.
So, any practical comparison must, imo, avoid tracks with "white noise" that has any structure (e.g.
clapping, crowd noise,  snare drum section, etc.
) as degenerate cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140312</id>
	<title>Re:Recording Bias</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1258484640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people are used to the slight hiss or static that comes with MP3's. In fact, we have lived with it so long, we believe it's normal. It's a form of bias, where most people are used to the sound of MP3's.</p></div><p>Speaking of which, here's a more concise article, on more readable sites, using a much broader sample of opinions than the 7 or so from TFA.</p><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/11/153205/Young-People-Prefer-Sizzle-Sounds-of-MP3-Format" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/11/153205/Young-People-Prefer-Sizzle-Sounds-of-MP3-Format</a> [slashdot.org]<br><a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html" title="oreilly.com" rel="nofollow">http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html</a> [oreilly.com]</p><p>And how long have mods been posting disclaimers about how crappy TFA is to read? Where does it end?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are used to the slight hiss or static that comes with MP3 's .
In fact , we have lived with it so long , we believe it 's normal .
It 's a form of bias , where most people are used to the sound of MP3 's.Speaking of which , here 's a more concise article , on more readable sites , using a much broader sample of opinions than the 7 or so from TFA.http : //news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/11/153205/Young-People-Prefer-Sizzle-Sounds-of-MP3-Format [ slashdot.org ] http : //radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html [ oreilly.com ] And how long have mods been posting disclaimers about how crappy TFA is to read ?
Where does it end ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are used to the slight hiss or static that comes with MP3's.
In fact, we have lived with it so long, we believe it's normal.
It's a form of bias, where most people are used to the sound of MP3's.Speaking of which, here's a more concise article, on more readable sites, using a much broader sample of opinions than the 7 or so from TFA.http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/11/153205/Young-People-Prefer-Sizzle-Sounds-of-MP3-Format [slashdot.org]http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/03/the-sizzling-sound-of-music.html [oreilly.com]And how long have mods been posting disclaimers about how crappy TFA is to read?
Where does it end?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139782</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258480020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not aware of "don't block ads" being a part of the common netiquette (if there is even still such a thing in existence). If anything, by now, some form of adblocking is more likely to be a rule than exception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not aware of " do n't block ads " being a part of the common netiquette ( if there is even still such a thing in existence ) .
If anything , by now , some form of adblocking is more likely to be a rule than exception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not aware of "don't block ads" being a part of the common netiquette (if there is even still such a thing in existence).
If anything, by now, some form of adblocking is more likely to be a rule than exception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139704</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Jared555</author>
	<datestamp>1258479540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a significant difference between someone buying $5000 speakers at best buy and buying $5000 quality speakers.  Most of the people with intelligence spending that much on equipment probably can tell a difference in quality.</p><p>On the other hand you have people who spend $5000 on repackaged $50 speakers and think they notice a difference in quality.  These are the same people who believe using Monster Cable wiring is going to improve their sound over using any other quality wire (no 22 gauge speaker wires to hook up 500 watt speakers, etc.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a significant difference between someone buying $ 5000 speakers at best buy and buying $ 5000 quality speakers .
Most of the people with intelligence spending that much on equipment probably can tell a difference in quality.On the other hand you have people who spend $ 5000 on repackaged $ 50 speakers and think they notice a difference in quality .
These are the same people who believe using Monster Cable wiring is going to improve their sound over using any other quality wire ( no 22 gauge speaker wires to hook up 500 watt speakers , etc .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a significant difference between someone buying $5000 speakers at best buy and buying $5000 quality speakers.
Most of the people with intelligence spending that much on equipment probably can tell a difference in quality.On the other hand you have people who spend $5000 on repackaged $50 speakers and think they notice a difference in quality.
These are the same people who believe using Monster Cable wiring is going to improve their sound over using any other quality wire (no 22 gauge speaker wires to hook up 500 watt speakers, etc.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30151808</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1257085920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mass produced vinyl back in the 1980's was pretty rubbish, but the vinyl pressing plants still operating today are producing for a specialist market - DJs and audiophiles, so they use thicker vinyl with deeper grooves that can easily handle the low end bass of the most demanding dance music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mass produced vinyl back in the 1980 's was pretty rubbish , but the vinyl pressing plants still operating today are producing for a specialist market - DJs and audiophiles , so they use thicker vinyl with deeper grooves that can easily handle the low end bass of the most demanding dance music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mass produced vinyl back in the 1980's was pretty rubbish, but the vinyl pressing plants still operating today are producing for a specialist market - DJs and audiophiles, so they use thicker vinyl with deeper grooves that can easily handle the low end bass of the most demanding dance music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148818</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257070680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Vinyl absolutely cannot "contain" any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least, nothing that was put there intentionally. The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter. You might be able to record a very soft low-frequency signal onto vinyl, but given the way human hearing works, that would almost certainly be masked by louder low frequency signals further up the audio spectrum in the music.</i></p><p>That's what the RIAA EQ curve is for. The bass is attenuated at recording and enhanced at playback. If your turntable has weak bass, it's because your turntable is crap (and most are). The sad thing is, back in the seventies you could get a very good turntable for a couple hundred bucks or a cheap $40 one from Radio Shack.</p><p>LPs contain frequencies from subsonic to supersonic. Cds are capable of subsonic, but not supersonic (limited to 22 kHz, barely supersonic, and the closer you get to the nyquist limit the more aliasing you have).</p><p>In short, son, you have no idea what you're talking about. You obviously never even heard of the RIAA equalization curve.</p><p><i>Vinyl's inability to handle even moderately loud low bass is the reason why the sound of dance music changed so much starting in the mid-'80s</i></p><p>More bullshit. It had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with psychology. The recordings had more bass because the original performance had more bass. That was about the time they stopped going for fidelity and started going for "sounds good".</p><p><i>You do get all sorts of low frequency signal coming off of vinyl when you play it, but it's mostly noise - rumble from the motor and pickup in the turntable itself</i></p><p>Again, you never heard anything but a low cost cheapo turntable. Rumle is virtually nonexistant on even a moderately good table.</p><p><i>As for high frequency data, yes vinyl can record signals higher than the 20kHz limit of CD, but if you're over 13 and live in the West it's unlikely you can hear any of it.</i></p><p>You can hear the harmonics in a 10 kHz tone, which are made up of supersonics that CDs can't reproduce.</p><p><i>Worse, each time you play a record the needle actually damages it</i></p><p>On your $40 rado shack turntable and its 25 gram stylus, sure. Get a good german Dual and it's only half a gram and you can play that LP every day for decades without any noticable wear.</p><p>I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ill-informed comment, the ignorance is painful to my brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vinyl absolutely can not " contain " any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least , nothing that was put there intentionally .
The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter .
You might be able to record a very soft low-frequency signal onto vinyl , but given the way human hearing works , that would almost certainly be masked by louder low frequency signals further up the audio spectrum in the music.That 's what the RIAA EQ curve is for .
The bass is attenuated at recording and enhanced at playback .
If your turntable has weak bass , it 's because your turntable is crap ( and most are ) .
The sad thing is , back in the seventies you could get a very good turntable for a couple hundred bucks or a cheap $ 40 one from Radio Shack.LPs contain frequencies from subsonic to supersonic .
Cds are capable of subsonic , but not supersonic ( limited to 22 kHz , barely supersonic , and the closer you get to the nyquist limit the more aliasing you have ) .In short , son , you have no idea what you 're talking about .
You obviously never even heard of the RIAA equalization curve.Vinyl 's inability to handle even moderately loud low bass is the reason why the sound of dance music changed so much starting in the mid-'80sMore bullshit .
It had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with psychology .
The recordings had more bass because the original performance had more bass .
That was about the time they stopped going for fidelity and started going for " sounds good " .You do get all sorts of low frequency signal coming off of vinyl when you play it , but it 's mostly noise - rumble from the motor and pickup in the turntable itselfAgain , you never heard anything but a low cost cheapo turntable .
Rumle is virtually nonexistant on even a moderately good table.As for high frequency data , yes vinyl can record signals higher than the 20kHz limit of CD , but if you 're over 13 and live in the West it 's unlikely you can hear any of it.You can hear the harmonics in a 10 kHz tone , which are made up of supersonics that CDs ca n't reproduce.Worse , each time you play a record the needle actually damages itOn your $ 40 rado shack turntable and its 25 gram stylus , sure .
Get a good german Dual and it 's only half a gram and you can play that LP every day for decades without any noticable wear.I 'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ill-informed comment , the ignorance is painful to my brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vinyl absolutely cannot "contain" any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least, nothing that was put there intentionally.
The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter.
You might be able to record a very soft low-frequency signal onto vinyl, but given the way human hearing works, that would almost certainly be masked by louder low frequency signals further up the audio spectrum in the music.That's what the RIAA EQ curve is for.
The bass is attenuated at recording and enhanced at playback.
If your turntable has weak bass, it's because your turntable is crap (and most are).
The sad thing is, back in the seventies you could get a very good turntable for a couple hundred bucks or a cheap $40 one from Radio Shack.LPs contain frequencies from subsonic to supersonic.
Cds are capable of subsonic, but not supersonic (limited to 22 kHz, barely supersonic, and the closer you get to the nyquist limit the more aliasing you have).In short, son, you have no idea what you're talking about.
You obviously never even heard of the RIAA equalization curve.Vinyl's inability to handle even moderately loud low bass is the reason why the sound of dance music changed so much starting in the mid-'80sMore bullshit.
It had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with psychology.
The recordings had more bass because the original performance had more bass.
That was about the time they stopped going for fidelity and started going for "sounds good".You do get all sorts of low frequency signal coming off of vinyl when you play it, but it's mostly noise - rumble from the motor and pickup in the turntable itselfAgain, you never heard anything but a low cost cheapo turntable.
Rumle is virtually nonexistant on even a moderately good table.As for high frequency data, yes vinyl can record signals higher than the 20kHz limit of CD, but if you're over 13 and live in the West it's unlikely you can hear any of it.You can hear the harmonics in a 10 kHz tone, which are made up of supersonics that CDs can't reproduce.Worse, each time you play a record the needle actually damages itOn your $40 rado shack turntable and its 25 gram stylus, sure.
Get a good german Dual and it's only half a gram and you can play that LP every day for decades without any noticable wear.I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your ill-informed comment, the ignorance is painful to my brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</id>
	<title>You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1258483800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The present study suffers from that methodological malady known in scientific circles as being "fucked". Please bear with me as I explain this technical term.</p><p>The question posed in the text is 'can we tell the difference'. One assumes from this that the answer is yes or no. Testing this question would require playing two versions and asking whether they're the same (can't tell the difference) or different (can etc.).</p><p>But that's not what gets asked. The subjects get asked to tell which version sounds better. The question assumes they can tell the difference. Even if they can't tell the difference they are forced by the design to choose one over the other as if they can.</p><p>Since they are forced to say which sounds better even if they can't tell the difference (something impossible to determine from this design) then they are simply guessing or picking one arbitrarily, and there is no way to determine if or when this occurred. Thus, the results are not only unable to answer the original question, they are unable to answer anything because the data do not even necessarily represent answers.</p><p>The design is so fatally flawed that there is nothing that can be pulled out of it. It's complete garbage.</p><p>As an aside, I'm not familiar with the musical pieces used, but I'm betting they're fairly new. For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers. Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again, no matter by what method.</p><p>To tell the difference between compressed versions one should start with an uncompressed source. And for a person to be able to hear a difference in two versions, they should already be familiar with the original in uncompressed form so they can try to say whether one sounds more like the original than the other (the alternative being both sound worse or both sound like it). If they have no clue what it's supposed to sound like, any attempt to say which sounds better is badly broken due to having no reference with which to compare them.</p><p>No attempt was made to determine whether the subjects even had normal hearing. And I don't mean just asked (though that should be done) but tested. People can have frequency drop outs that they're unaware of and that would affect the results.</p><p>There are so many problems with the study that it is completely useless. The problems were of the authors' making. Thus, they did not know what they were doing. This is what we mean by "fucked".</p><p>I want to know who determined that 'trusted' was a good name for the magazine/blog/honey wagon in which the article appears. I wouldn't trust them to test light bulbs to see if they're burnt out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The present study suffers from that methodological malady known in scientific circles as being " fucked " .
Please bear with me as I explain this technical term.The question posed in the text is 'can we tell the difference' .
One assumes from this that the answer is yes or no .
Testing this question would require playing two versions and asking whether they 're the same ( ca n't tell the difference ) or different ( can etc .
) .But that 's not what gets asked .
The subjects get asked to tell which version sounds better .
The question assumes they can tell the difference .
Even if they ca n't tell the difference they are forced by the design to choose one over the other as if they can.Since they are forced to say which sounds better even if they ca n't tell the difference ( something impossible to determine from this design ) then they are simply guessing or picking one arbitrarily , and there is no way to determine if or when this occurred .
Thus , the results are not only unable to answer the original question , they are unable to answer anything because the data do not even necessarily represent answers.The design is so fatally flawed that there is nothing that can be pulled out of it .
It 's complete garbage.As an aside , I 'm not familiar with the musical pieces used , but I 'm betting they 're fairly new .
For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers .
Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you ca n't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again , no matter by what method.To tell the difference between compressed versions one should start with an uncompressed source .
And for a person to be able to hear a difference in two versions , they should already be familiar with the original in uncompressed form so they can try to say whether one sounds more like the original than the other ( the alternative being both sound worse or both sound like it ) .
If they have no clue what it 's supposed to sound like , any attempt to say which sounds better is badly broken due to having no reference with which to compare them.No attempt was made to determine whether the subjects even had normal hearing .
And I do n't mean just asked ( though that should be done ) but tested .
People can have frequency drop outs that they 're unaware of and that would affect the results.There are so many problems with the study that it is completely useless .
The problems were of the authors ' making .
Thus , they did not know what they were doing .
This is what we mean by " fucked " .I want to know who determined that 'trusted ' was a good name for the magazine/blog/honey wagon in which the article appears .
I would n't trust them to test light bulbs to see if they 're burnt out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The present study suffers from that methodological malady known in scientific circles as being "fucked".
Please bear with me as I explain this technical term.The question posed in the text is 'can we tell the difference'.
One assumes from this that the answer is yes or no.
Testing this question would require playing two versions and asking whether they're the same (can't tell the difference) or different (can etc.
).But that's not what gets asked.
The subjects get asked to tell which version sounds better.
The question assumes they can tell the difference.
Even if they can't tell the difference they are forced by the design to choose one over the other as if they can.Since they are forced to say which sounds better even if they can't tell the difference (something impossible to determine from this design) then they are simply guessing or picking one arbitrarily, and there is no way to determine if or when this occurred.
Thus, the results are not only unable to answer the original question, they are unable to answer anything because the data do not even necessarily represent answers.The design is so fatally flawed that there is nothing that can be pulled out of it.
It's complete garbage.As an aside, I'm not familiar with the musical pieces used, but I'm betting they're fairly new.
For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers.
Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again, no matter by what method.To tell the difference between compressed versions one should start with an uncompressed source.
And for a person to be able to hear a difference in two versions, they should already be familiar with the original in uncompressed form so they can try to say whether one sounds more like the original than the other (the alternative being both sound worse or both sound like it).
If they have no clue what it's supposed to sound like, any attempt to say which sounds better is badly broken due to having no reference with which to compare them.No attempt was made to determine whether the subjects even had normal hearing.
And I don't mean just asked (though that should be done) but tested.
People can have frequency drop outs that they're unaware of and that would affect the results.There are so many problems with the study that it is completely useless.
The problems were of the authors' making.
Thus, they did not know what they were doing.
This is what we mean by "fucked".I want to know who determined that 'trusted' was a good name for the magazine/blog/honey wagon in which the article appears.
I wouldn't trust them to test light bulbs to see if they're burnt out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141746</id>
	<title>Snobbery</title>
	<author>gsslay</author>
	<datestamp>1257077520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"a worrying preponderance" "if slightly disturbing"</p><p>I'm more intrigued why the submitter considers this worrying and disturbing.   If people are happy with the quality of sound produced by an MP3, why should it be a concern?  Surely this is more an indication that MP3s of a certain bitrate are doing what they were designed to do.  Should we be implementing a law to force FLACs on people?  After all, they clearly don't know what's best for them and need to be told.</p><p>But why you would find it a worry is beyond me.  Does the submitter often have sleepless nights over the absolutely dreadful tastes of those less discerning than themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" a worrying preponderance " " if slightly disturbing " I 'm more intrigued why the submitter considers this worrying and disturbing .
If people are happy with the quality of sound produced by an MP3 , why should it be a concern ?
Surely this is more an indication that MP3s of a certain bitrate are doing what they were designed to do .
Should we be implementing a law to force FLACs on people ?
After all , they clearly do n't know what 's best for them and need to be told.But why you would find it a worry is beyond me .
Does the submitter often have sleepless nights over the absolutely dreadful tastes of those less discerning than themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"a worrying preponderance" "if slightly disturbing"I'm more intrigued why the submitter considers this worrying and disturbing.
If people are happy with the quality of sound produced by an MP3, why should it be a concern?
Surely this is more an indication that MP3s of a certain bitrate are doing what they were designed to do.
Should we be implementing a law to force FLACs on people?
After all, they clearly don't know what's best for them and need to be told.But why you would find it a worry is beyond me.
Does the submitter often have sleepless nights over the absolutely dreadful tastes of those less discerning than themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139522</id>
	<title>Use your own ears</title>
	<author>carbona</author>
	<datestamp>1258477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This debate is largely irrelevant to most people who don't have high end gear (particularly headphones which can be disturbingly revealing). It really comes down to your specific situation and equipment. I have run endless double blind tests with lossless files and LAME encoded MP3s (at -V2 and -V0 VBR quality) and I can safely say that I can't tell the difference between those formats. 128Kbps AAC and MP3s are a different story. I could hear discernible differences with those bitrates against the lossless versions. With Amazon and iTunes now offering DRM-free 256Kbps files, I find the issue nearly moot.</p><p>I say "nearly moot" because I refuse to regularly pay out a minimum of $10 for digital albums that don't have the overhead of printing liner notes and pressing CDs. But I have purchased several Amazon $5 albums and even an iTunes album that was $7 that included a high resolution PDF of the liner notes.</p><p>As a result, I still buy most of my music on CD and vinyl and archive the files to Apple Lossless and rip those to LAME -V0 VBR MP3s for actual listening. Why keep a copy of large lossless files if MP3s are good enough? Chalk that up to my fear that one day I may want to transcode those lossless files to a new format that improves compression and maintains transparency or storage prices for DAPs and media become so cheap that I might as well just use the lossless versions as my primary playback files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This debate is largely irrelevant to most people who do n't have high end gear ( particularly headphones which can be disturbingly revealing ) .
It really comes down to your specific situation and equipment .
I have run endless double blind tests with lossless files and LAME encoded MP3s ( at -V2 and -V0 VBR quality ) and I can safely say that I ca n't tell the difference between those formats .
128Kbps AAC and MP3s are a different story .
I could hear discernible differences with those bitrates against the lossless versions .
With Amazon and iTunes now offering DRM-free 256Kbps files , I find the issue nearly moot.I say " nearly moot " because I refuse to regularly pay out a minimum of $ 10 for digital albums that do n't have the overhead of printing liner notes and pressing CDs .
But I have purchased several Amazon $ 5 albums and even an iTunes album that was $ 7 that included a high resolution PDF of the liner notes.As a result , I still buy most of my music on CD and vinyl and archive the files to Apple Lossless and rip those to LAME -V0 VBR MP3s for actual listening .
Why keep a copy of large lossless files if MP3s are good enough ?
Chalk that up to my fear that one day I may want to transcode those lossless files to a new format that improves compression and maintains transparency or storage prices for DAPs and media become so cheap that I might as well just use the lossless versions as my primary playback files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This debate is largely irrelevant to most people who don't have high end gear (particularly headphones which can be disturbingly revealing).
It really comes down to your specific situation and equipment.
I have run endless double blind tests with lossless files and LAME encoded MP3s (at -V2 and -V0 VBR quality) and I can safely say that I can't tell the difference between those formats.
128Kbps AAC and MP3s are a different story.
I could hear discernible differences with those bitrates against the lossless versions.
With Amazon and iTunes now offering DRM-free 256Kbps files, I find the issue nearly moot.I say "nearly moot" because I refuse to regularly pay out a minimum of $10 for digital albums that don't have the overhead of printing liner notes and pressing CDs.
But I have purchased several Amazon $5 albums and even an iTunes album that was $7 that included a high resolution PDF of the liner notes.As a result, I still buy most of my music on CD and vinyl and archive the files to Apple Lossless and rip those to LAME -V0 VBR MP3s for actual listening.
Why keep a copy of large lossless files if MP3s are good enough?
Chalk that up to my fear that one day I may want to transcode those lossless files to a new format that improves compression and maintains transparency or storage prices for DAPs and media become so cheap that I might as well just use the lossless versions as my primary playback files.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150086</id>
	<title>They interpreted the results wrong</title>
	<author>Shaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1257076380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, I can clearly tell the difference between 128 bit mp3 and the original.  I know I'm not alone.

A story already broke quite some time ago in which a study was done and determined that today's music listeners have been conditioned to prefer the sound of music distorted by compression.  They have been listening to mp3s for the majority of their life and that is what they consider "normal."

As far as I'm concerned, this story simply reaffirms the results of that study.  More people picked MP3 because that is what they like and that is what they are used to.

Also this "study" was carried out on what, all of 7 people?  Give me an f'ing break.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , I can clearly tell the difference between 128 bit mp3 and the original .
I know I 'm not alone .
A story already broke quite some time ago in which a study was done and determined that today 's music listeners have been conditioned to prefer the sound of music distorted by compression .
They have been listening to mp3s for the majority of their life and that is what they consider " normal .
" As far as I 'm concerned , this story simply reaffirms the results of that study .
More people picked MP3 because that is what they like and that is what they are used to .
Also this " study " was carried out on what , all of 7 people ?
Give me an f'ing break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, I can clearly tell the difference between 128 bit mp3 and the original.
I know I'm not alone.
A story already broke quite some time ago in which a study was done and determined that today's music listeners have been conditioned to prefer the sound of music distorted by compression.
They have been listening to mp3s for the majority of their life and that is what they consider "normal.
"

As far as I'm concerned, this story simply reaffirms the results of that study.
More people picked MP3 because that is what they like and that is what they are used to.
Also this "study" was carried out on what, all of 7 people?
Give me an f'ing break.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140616</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>oncebitten</author>
	<datestamp>1257105600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates?</p> </div><p>Ogg is a container, not a codec.  You can put Flac in an Ogg container, just like you can put PCM/AC3, etc in an MPEG2 container.  Vorbis is a codec.</p><p>Sorry, that just always annoys me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates ?
Ogg is a container , not a codec .
You can put Flac in an Ogg container , just like you can put PCM/AC3 , etc in an MPEG2 container .
Vorbis is a codec.Sorry , that just always annoys me : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates?
Ogg is a container, not a codec.
You can put Flac in an Ogg container, just like you can put PCM/AC3, etc in an MPEG2 container.
Vorbis is a codec.Sorry, that just always annoys me :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139418</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Records might sound better than digital recordings, but only if they strip out the high frequency noise in the recording. Throwing out data in the original might be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Records might sound better than digital recordings , but only if they strip out the high frequency noise in the recording .
Throwing out data in the original might be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Records might sound better than digital recordings, but only if they strip out the high frequency noise in the recording.
Throwing out data in the original might be a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139466</id>
	<title>Well, they're testing the wrong thing</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1258477440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps they should try ripping the same track to FLAC and MP3.  And then ripping the ripped track to FLAC and MP3 again.  And then again.  And again.  And then compare the results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they should try ripping the same track to FLAC and MP3 .
And then ripping the ripped track to FLAC and MP3 again .
And then again .
And again .
And then compare the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they should try ripping the same track to FLAC and MP3.
And then ripping the ripped track to FLAC and MP3 again.
And then again.
And again.
And then compare the results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141468</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music. Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion, their system is great.</p></div><p>Most people have known for decades that audiophiles are full of crap.  Every single time I've seen a double-blind test to see if they can hear the difference on what they claim they can hear, turns out they can't.  Hey, good for the people selling them $1,000 audio cables.</p><p>That said, there's a good reason to go with FLAC.  Want to re-encode a lower quality version for your storage-space-limited device?  You can do that without additional quality loss, just like re-ripping from the cd.  Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates?  Again, go ahead.</p><p>Basically, it's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless, because you can re-encode it into the lossless codec of your choice for whatever device you want without introducing further artifacts.</p></div><p>I'm new here.  What is a storage-space-limited device?   Why would I choose a lower bit-rate at all?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners can not discern excellent from mediocre music .
Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion , their system is great.Most people have known for decades that audiophiles are full of crap .
Every single time I 've seen a double-blind test to see if they can hear the difference on what they claim they can hear , turns out they ca n't .
Hey , good for the people selling them $ 1,000 audio cables.That said , there 's a good reason to go with FLAC .
Want to re-encode a lower quality version for your storage-space-limited device ?
You can do that without additional quality loss , just like re-ripping from the cd .
Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates ?
Again , go ahead.Basically , it 's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless , because you can re-encode it into the lossless codec of your choice for whatever device you want without introducing further artifacts.I 'm new here .
What is a storage-space-limited device ?
Why would I choose a lower bit-rate at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.
Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion, their system is great.Most people have known for decades that audiophiles are full of crap.
Every single time I've seen a double-blind test to see if they can hear the difference on what they claim they can hear, turns out they can't.
Hey, good for the people selling them $1,000 audio cables.That said, there's a good reason to go with FLAC.
Want to re-encode a lower quality version for your storage-space-limited device?
You can do that without additional quality loss, just like re-ripping from the cd.
Want to change your collection to ogg because it sounds better at lower bitrates?
Again, go ahead.Basically, it's nice having a hard drive copy that is lossless, because you can re-encode it into the lossless codec of your choice for whatever device you want without introducing further artifacts.I'm new here.
What is a storage-space-limited device?
Why would I choose a lower bit-rate at all?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140134</id>
	<title>Re:Recording Bias</title>
	<author>Damek</author>
	<datestamp>1258482960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, you're crazy.</p><p>To defend my purchasing choices, I choose this option.</p><p>Or, are you defending your purchasing choices?</p><p>Is "yes, humans can tell" even disprovable? No matter how big the sample of subjective subjects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , you 're crazy.To defend my purchasing choices , I choose this option.Or , are you defending your purchasing choices ? Is " yes , humans can tell " even disprovable ?
No matter how big the sample of subjective subjects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, you're crazy.To defend my purchasing choices, I choose this option.Or, are you defending your purchasing choices?Is "yes, humans can tell" even disprovable?
No matter how big the sample of subjective subjects?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143210</id>
	<title>why you should still encode losslessly</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1257089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there is an obvious, but fundamental difference between lossy and lossless encodings: with lossy codecs you can't reconstruct the original data. In the lossy case, that means that if you ever want to edit or process your audio, you will be decoding imperfect data and lossily recoding it. Every time you repeat this, your audio will gather more encoding artefacts. Very soon these artefacts will be audible if not annoying.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is an obvious , but fundamental difference between lossy and lossless encodings : with lossy codecs you ca n't reconstruct the original data .
In the lossy case , that means that if you ever want to edit or process your audio , you will be decoding imperfect data and lossily recoding it .
Every time you repeat this , your audio will gather more encoding artefacts .
Very soon these artefacts will be audible if not annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is an obvious, but fundamental difference between lossy and lossless encodings: with lossy codecs you can't reconstruct the original data.
In the lossy case, that means that if you ever want to edit or process your audio, you will be decoding imperfect data and lossily recoding it.
Every time you repeat this, your audio will gather more encoding artefacts.
Very soon these artefacts will be audible if not annoying.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144556</id>
	<title>Here we go again</title>
	<author>Grismar</author>
	<datestamp>1257094860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA: ".. and that they struggle to hear much difference over 192kbps MP3 in many situations."</p><p>That's the whole point, isn't it? So what if a (very) large percentage of the music sounds "fine" in MP3? That still leaves the rest where you can tell "something is off" and in some cases it's just plain annoying.</p><p>Typical examples include high quality recordings of classical music in rooms with characteristic reverberation (the reverb is lost, resulting in location of instruments being hard to pinpoint, unlike in the lossless original on good hardware). Or live recordings of crowds cheering over "open" music, like acoustical guitar and song (applause and cheering tends to sound like it's been caught in too tight an envelope). Or heavy distortion in high density music like really noisy techno or very fuzzy guitars (as in stoner rock or some metal).</p><p>If you listen to none of these and basically only care for heavily compressed pop music with clear production, you're likely not to care. If you happen to like these more than anything else, you're probably hating MP3. On average, most people won't care most of the time, but whenever they do care, they'll wish they had chosen a lossless format. It's not like we don't have the space to store it, after all.</p><p>Streaming is another story altogether of course, the cost of size factors in differently.</p><p>Greetings,
Grismar</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " .. and that they struggle to hear much difference over 192kbps MP3 in many situations .
" That 's the whole point , is n't it ?
So what if a ( very ) large percentage of the music sounds " fine " in MP3 ?
That still leaves the rest where you can tell " something is off " and in some cases it 's just plain annoying.Typical examples include high quality recordings of classical music in rooms with characteristic reverberation ( the reverb is lost , resulting in location of instruments being hard to pinpoint , unlike in the lossless original on good hardware ) .
Or live recordings of crowds cheering over " open " music , like acoustical guitar and song ( applause and cheering tends to sound like it 's been caught in too tight an envelope ) .
Or heavy distortion in high density music like really noisy techno or very fuzzy guitars ( as in stoner rock or some metal ) .If you listen to none of these and basically only care for heavily compressed pop music with clear production , you 're likely not to care .
If you happen to like these more than anything else , you 're probably hating MP3 .
On average , most people wo n't care most of the time , but whenever they do care , they 'll wish they had chosen a lossless format .
It 's not like we do n't have the space to store it , after all.Streaming is another story altogether of course , the cost of size factors in differently.Greetings , Grismar</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA: ".. and that they struggle to hear much difference over 192kbps MP3 in many situations.
"That's the whole point, isn't it?
So what if a (very) large percentage of the music sounds "fine" in MP3?
That still leaves the rest where you can tell "something is off" and in some cases it's just plain annoying.Typical examples include high quality recordings of classical music in rooms with characteristic reverberation (the reverb is lost, resulting in location of instruments being hard to pinpoint, unlike in the lossless original on good hardware).
Or live recordings of crowds cheering over "open" music, like acoustical guitar and song (applause and cheering tends to sound like it's been caught in too tight an envelope).
Or heavy distortion in high density music like really noisy techno or very fuzzy guitars (as in stoner rock or some metal).If you listen to none of these and basically only care for heavily compressed pop music with clear production, you're likely not to care.
If you happen to like these more than anything else, you're probably hating MP3.
On average, most people won't care most of the time, but whenever they do care, they'll wish they had chosen a lossless format.
It's not like we don't have the space to store it, after all.Streaming is another story altogether of course, the cost of size factors in differently.Greetings,
Grismar</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140222</id>
	<title>Re:This is no surprise</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1258483680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work with musicians professionally, who are all obsessed with getting the best sound possible.  When they talk, it's all about who can they get to add a solo, or adding limiters to bring the vocal clarity up in the mix, or nifty new instruments they're playing with.  I don't think I've ever heard of one of them talking about getting new cabling, or speakers (other than their guitar amp), or a lot of the things that audiophiles obsess over.  No sound is "bad," it's just for when you want that specific tone.</p><p>If art patrons loved art the way audiophiles love music they'd sit around all day and do nothing but polish the glass in the frame until it was 99.999\% clear, always commenting on how "crisp" and "clear" the paint looked under the glass.  They'd never actually getting out to a museum and really looking at paintings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work with musicians professionally , who are all obsessed with getting the best sound possible .
When they talk , it 's all about who can they get to add a solo , or adding limiters to bring the vocal clarity up in the mix , or nifty new instruments they 're playing with .
I do n't think I 've ever heard of one of them talking about getting new cabling , or speakers ( other than their guitar amp ) , or a lot of the things that audiophiles obsess over .
No sound is " bad , " it 's just for when you want that specific tone.If art patrons loved art the way audiophiles love music they 'd sit around all day and do nothing but polish the glass in the frame until it was 99.999 \ % clear , always commenting on how " crisp " and " clear " the paint looked under the glass .
They 'd never actually getting out to a museum and really looking at paintings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work with musicians professionally, who are all obsessed with getting the best sound possible.
When they talk, it's all about who can they get to add a solo, or adding limiters to bring the vocal clarity up in the mix, or nifty new instruments they're playing with.
I don't think I've ever heard of one of them talking about getting new cabling, or speakers (other than their guitar amp), or a lot of the things that audiophiles obsess over.
No sound is "bad," it's just for when you want that specific tone.If art patrons loved art the way audiophiles love music they'd sit around all day and do nothing but polish the glass in the frame until it was 99.999\% clear, always commenting on how "crisp" and "clear" the paint looked under the glass.
They'd never actually getting out to a museum and really looking at paintings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148530</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With portable devices it isn't just storage capacity you need to worry about, it's power consumption. The power consumed by a single purpose DSP chip for mp3 decoding is trivial, they can run for days off battery. It takes more power to read the mp3 data off a flash chip than to decode that to analog audio. Switch to flac, and you're talking 4-6 times the power consumption.</p><p>It was very noticable with the old hard drive based iPods. Playing 128kB mp3s, my old 30GB model would go 10 minutes between spinning up the hard drive, and would play for about 9 hours before running flat. Switching up to 320kB, and it would go 4 minutes between spinups, and run flat by lunchtime. 192kB made for a nice compromise that meant I could listen to music as I desired during the day, and recharge at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With portable devices it is n't just storage capacity you need to worry about , it 's power consumption .
The power consumed by a single purpose DSP chip for mp3 decoding is trivial , they can run for days off battery .
It takes more power to read the mp3 data off a flash chip than to decode that to analog audio .
Switch to flac , and you 're talking 4-6 times the power consumption.It was very noticable with the old hard drive based iPods .
Playing 128kB mp3s , my old 30GB model would go 10 minutes between spinning up the hard drive , and would play for about 9 hours before running flat .
Switching up to 320kB , and it would go 4 minutes between spinups , and run flat by lunchtime .
192kB made for a nice compromise that meant I could listen to music as I desired during the day , and recharge at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With portable devices it isn't just storage capacity you need to worry about, it's power consumption.
The power consumed by a single purpose DSP chip for mp3 decoding is trivial, they can run for days off battery.
It takes more power to read the mp3 data off a flash chip than to decode that to analog audio.
Switch to flac, and you're talking 4-6 times the power consumption.It was very noticable with the old hard drive based iPods.
Playing 128kB mp3s, my old 30GB model would go 10 minutes between spinning up the hard drive, and would play for about 9 hours before running flat.
Switching up to 320kB, and it would go 4 minutes between spinups, and run flat by lunchtime.
192kB made for a nice compromise that meant I could listen to music as I desired during the day, and recharge at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142442</id>
	<title>Electrons only travel along the surface</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick, in other words it is worthless.</p></div><p>You do know that the electrons only move along the surface of wires, right? You might want to just stick to what you know...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick , in other words it is worthless.You do know that the electrons only move along the surface of wires , right ?
You might want to just stick to what you know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick, in other words it is worthless.You do know that the electrons only move along the surface of wires, right?
You might want to just stick to what you know...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143732</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1257091800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with you generally (even if your post has its flaws, pointed out already in other asnwer), why do you think people should be trained in how original sounds before the tests? It would <i>preciselly</i> work against determining whether people can hear the difference.</p><p>Also, proper ABX methodology doesn't even attempt to directly compare compressed samples. It only compares one compressed sample to the original and <i>only determines "do you hear a difference?"</i> If you want to test another ecnoding, you make <b>another</b> ABX test. Only comparing the results of both of those tests can somewhat give an answer to "which encoding is better?", which actually means "which is closer to the original?" obviously (original assumed a priori, correctly IMHO, to be the best, the benchmark)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with you generally ( even if your post has its flaws , pointed out already in other asnwer ) , why do you think people should be trained in how original sounds before the tests ?
It would preciselly work against determining whether people can hear the difference.Also , proper ABX methodology does n't even attempt to directly compare compressed samples .
It only compares one compressed sample to the original and only determines " do you hear a difference ?
" If you want to test another ecnoding , you make another ABX test .
Only comparing the results of both of those tests can somewhat give an answer to " which encoding is better ?
" , which actually means " which is closer to the original ?
" obviously ( original assumed a priori , correctly IMHO , to be the best , the benchmark )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with you generally (even if your post has its flaws, pointed out already in other asnwer), why do you think people should be trained in how original sounds before the tests?
It would preciselly work against determining whether people can hear the difference.Also, proper ABX methodology doesn't even attempt to directly compare compressed samples.
It only compares one compressed sample to the original and only determines "do you hear a difference?
" If you want to test another ecnoding, you make another ABX test.
Only comparing the results of both of those tests can somewhat give an answer to "which encoding is better?
", which actually means "which is closer to the original?
" obviously (original assumed a priori, correctly IMHO, to be the best, the benchmark)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142492</id>
	<title>Source is the key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All depends on the source.</p><p>I listen to a lot of old 1950's radio broadcasts, believe it or not they sound great at 64kbps! They are mono recordings, made of very early equipment, so anything is up!</p><p>I also listen to a lot of death and thrash and quite frankly your wasting disk space and time when you go above 192kbps. 128kbps, you still get a bit of clipping, so just erring on the side of caution is better. FLAC? What, for stuff by Cannibal Corpse, Dethklok or Malefice? Just not worth it!</p><p>All modern music from popular genres, pop, rap, metal, rock, is compressed to death, so even if you FLAC it, it's still pretty much screwed before you even get it, so why waste your time, yeah go up to 256kbps for peace of mind, but any further and your wasting your time, on popular, "mainstream" music that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All depends on the source.I listen to a lot of old 1950 's radio broadcasts , believe it or not they sound great at 64kbps !
They are mono recordings , made of very early equipment , so anything is up ! I also listen to a lot of death and thrash and quite frankly your wasting disk space and time when you go above 192kbps .
128kbps , you still get a bit of clipping , so just erring on the side of caution is better .
FLAC ? What , for stuff by Cannibal Corpse , Dethklok or Malefice ?
Just not worth it ! All modern music from popular genres , pop , rap , metal , rock , is compressed to death , so even if you FLAC it , it 's still pretty much screwed before you even get it , so why waste your time , yeah go up to 256kbps for peace of mind , but any further and your wasting your time , on popular , " mainstream " music that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All depends on the source.I listen to a lot of old 1950's radio broadcasts, believe it or not they sound great at 64kbps!
They are mono recordings, made of very early equipment, so anything is up!I also listen to a lot of death and thrash and quite frankly your wasting disk space and time when you go above 192kbps.
128kbps, you still get a bit of clipping, so just erring on the side of caution is better.
FLAC? What, for stuff by Cannibal Corpse, Dethklok or Malefice?
Just not worth it!All modern music from popular genres, pop, rap, metal, rock, is compressed to death, so even if you FLAC it, it's still pretty much screwed before you even get it, so why waste your time, yeah go up to 256kbps for peace of mind, but any further and your wasting your time, on popular, "mainstream" music that is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141762</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Frostalicious</author>
	<datestamp>1257077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
The audiophiles I've talked to don't get turntables and tube amps for better accuracy.  They just like the sound better.
<br> <br>
Essentially the turntable and amp become part of the instrument.  They do change the music, but in a desirable way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The audiophiles I 've talked to do n't get turntables and tube amps for better accuracy .
They just like the sound better .
Essentially the turntable and amp become part of the instrument .
They do change the music , but in a desirable way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The audiophiles I've talked to don't get turntables and tube amps for better accuracy.
They just like the sound better.
Essentially the turntable and amp become part of the instrument.
They do change the music, but in a desirable way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142802</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can easily hear 23khz, and can barely hear 24. I'm 16, by the way. I'm certain I'm not hearing the harmonic distortions, as many are, as I listened at 192kbps (by sampling theorem, therefore...), and my soundcard can go well above 30khz by rightmark. <br> <br>

Audiophiles are sorta segregated into two groups (In practice, there are lots of people in between). One is the technofags. Those people on hydrogen audio, they want the most transparent sound possible. They want to hear sound "as it is recorded". Those would probably use transistor/opamp amplifiers and such. Then there are those who just want a nice sound, the vinyl+tube amp guys. Also, many medium to high end microphones can go to almost 40khz, some even more.<br> <br>

"and at the levels they'd naturally occur at in music nobody can tell the difference between a signal that's cut off at 20kHz and one that isn't." I would concur that is a fallacy of hasty generalization. There are probably people who CAN tell the difference. Look, the levels aren't exactly as low as you make it out to be.<br> <br>

Also, your entire argument is based on a faulty premise that CD's cutoff frequency is 20khz. It is not. It is, in fact, 22.05khz. And that 2 khz is a huge difference, as adults who can hear above 20khz exist, but above 22khz are REALLY hard to come by.<br> <br>

I'm not a fan of vinyl, but I do hate faulty arguments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can easily hear 23khz , and can barely hear 24 .
I 'm 16 , by the way .
I 'm certain I 'm not hearing the harmonic distortions , as many are , as I listened at 192kbps ( by sampling theorem , therefore... ) , and my soundcard can go well above 30khz by rightmark .
Audiophiles are sorta segregated into two groups ( In practice , there are lots of people in between ) .
One is the technofags .
Those people on hydrogen audio , they want the most transparent sound possible .
They want to hear sound " as it is recorded " .
Those would probably use transistor/opamp amplifiers and such .
Then there are those who just want a nice sound , the vinyl + tube amp guys .
Also , many medium to high end microphones can go to almost 40khz , some even more .
" and at the levels they 'd naturally occur at in music nobody can tell the difference between a signal that 's cut off at 20kHz and one that is n't .
" I would concur that is a fallacy of hasty generalization .
There are probably people who CAN tell the difference .
Look , the levels are n't exactly as low as you make it out to be .
Also , your entire argument is based on a faulty premise that CD 's cutoff frequency is 20khz .
It is not .
It is , in fact , 22.05khz .
And that 2 khz is a huge difference , as adults who can hear above 20khz exist , but above 22khz are REALLY hard to come by .
I 'm not a fan of vinyl , but I do hate faulty arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can easily hear 23khz, and can barely hear 24.
I'm 16, by the way.
I'm certain I'm not hearing the harmonic distortions, as many are, as I listened at 192kbps (by sampling theorem, therefore...), and my soundcard can go well above 30khz by rightmark.
Audiophiles are sorta segregated into two groups (In practice, there are lots of people in between).
One is the technofags.
Those people on hydrogen audio, they want the most transparent sound possible.
They want to hear sound "as it is recorded".
Those would probably use transistor/opamp amplifiers and such.
Then there are those who just want a nice sound, the vinyl+tube amp guys.
Also, many medium to high end microphones can go to almost 40khz, some even more.
"and at the levels they'd naturally occur at in music nobody can tell the difference between a signal that's cut off at 20kHz and one that isn't.
" I would concur that is a fallacy of hasty generalization.
There are probably people who CAN tell the difference.
Look, the levels aren't exactly as low as you make it out to be.
Also, your entire argument is based on a faulty premise that CD's cutoff frequency is 20khz.
It is not.
It is, in fact, 22.05khz.
And that 2 khz is a huge difference, as adults who can hear above 20khz exist, but above 22khz are REALLY hard to come by.
I'm not a fan of vinyl, but I do hate faulty arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140502</id>
	<title>It's tube amplifiers all over again</title>
	<author>leereyno</author>
	<datestamp>1258486740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of your audiophiles will tell you that tube based amplifiers produce less distortion than transistor based models.</p><p>The truth is that they often produce MORE distortion, only the distortion that they produce is pleasing to the ear, where as the distortion created by transistor based amps tends to be unpleasant to listen to.</p><p>If listeners are rating MP3's as superior to FLAC, it is most likely because the psycho-acoustic models used by the codes are introducing artifacts that improve the sound of the music, at least according to the subjective opinion of those listeners.</p><p>What you have to realize is that there is no perfect recording of music or any other form of audio data.  All music is distorted as compared to what it actually sounded like in the studio.  Some of this distortion is deliberate, which is why you have all those knobs and dials on the mixing console.  A lot of music nowadays is compressed, which creates more deliberate distortion.  Encoding that analog data into a 16bit digital stream stream at 44khz produces yet more distortion.</p><p>At the end of the day you have to figure out what sounds best to you because all of it will have distortion of some sort or another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of your audiophiles will tell you that tube based amplifiers produce less distortion than transistor based models.The truth is that they often produce MORE distortion , only the distortion that they produce is pleasing to the ear , where as the distortion created by transistor based amps tends to be unpleasant to listen to.If listeners are rating MP3 's as superior to FLAC , it is most likely because the psycho-acoustic models used by the codes are introducing artifacts that improve the sound of the music , at least according to the subjective opinion of those listeners.What you have to realize is that there is no perfect recording of music or any other form of audio data .
All music is distorted as compared to what it actually sounded like in the studio .
Some of this distortion is deliberate , which is why you have all those knobs and dials on the mixing console .
A lot of music nowadays is compressed , which creates more deliberate distortion .
Encoding that analog data into a 16bit digital stream stream at 44khz produces yet more distortion.At the end of the day you have to figure out what sounds best to you because all of it will have distortion of some sort or another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of your audiophiles will tell you that tube based amplifiers produce less distortion than transistor based models.The truth is that they often produce MORE distortion, only the distortion that they produce is pleasing to the ear, where as the distortion created by transistor based amps tends to be unpleasant to listen to.If listeners are rating MP3's as superior to FLAC, it is most likely because the psycho-acoustic models used by the codes are introducing artifacts that improve the sound of the music, at least according to the subjective opinion of those listeners.What you have to realize is that there is no perfect recording of music or any other form of audio data.
All music is distorted as compared to what it actually sounded like in the studio.
Some of this distortion is deliberate, which is why you have all those knobs and dials on the mixing console.
A lot of music nowadays is compressed, which creates more deliberate distortion.
Encoding that analog data into a 16bit digital stream stream at 44khz produces yet more distortion.At the end of the day you have to figure out what sounds best to you because all of it will have distortion of some sort or another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140206</id>
	<title>Often its the hardware that makes the difference</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1258483620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 128k mp3 can sound MUCH better with better quality DSP hardware and better quality speakers/headphones.</p><p>The best investment I made for listening to music was investing in a klipsch 2.1 speaker set. Modern motherboard HD audio is pretty<br>decent but using $10 speakers it all sounds like crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 128k mp3 can sound MUCH better with better quality DSP hardware and better quality speakers/headphones.The best investment I made for listening to music was investing in a klipsch 2.1 speaker set .
Modern motherboard HD audio is prettydecent but using $ 10 speakers it all sounds like crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 128k mp3 can sound MUCH better with better quality DSP hardware and better quality speakers/headphones.The best investment I made for listening to music was investing in a klipsch 2.1 speaker set.
Modern motherboard HD audio is prettydecent but using $10 speakers it all sounds like crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139326</id>
	<title>Simple reasoning</title>
	<author>dagamer34</author>
	<datestamp>1258476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people have spent so much time with iPod earbuds that they've killed their hearing, and that's why they can't tell the difference between formats. Besides, I think most audiophiles would agree that it's file format + speakers/headphones that make a difference.
<br>
<br>
Now, I'm not saying that everything should be in FLAC and you should blow your budget on $500 headphones, since most people probably won't be able to tell the difference, however, I consider it just an accomplishment if people can enjoy their music without the person next to them being able to clearly hear it because they've jacked the volume up to insane levels(a sign of poor earbud fit). That's all I really care about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people have spent so much time with iPod earbuds that they 've killed their hearing , and that 's why they ca n't tell the difference between formats .
Besides , I think most audiophiles would agree that it 's file format + speakers/headphones that make a difference .
Now , I 'm not saying that everything should be in FLAC and you should blow your budget on $ 500 headphones , since most people probably wo n't be able to tell the difference , however , I consider it just an accomplishment if people can enjoy their music without the person next to them being able to clearly hear it because they 've jacked the volume up to insane levels ( a sign of poor earbud fit ) .
That 's all I really care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people have spent so much time with iPod earbuds that they've killed their hearing, and that's why they can't tell the difference between formats.
Besides, I think most audiophiles would agree that it's file format + speakers/headphones that make a difference.
Now, I'm not saying that everything should be in FLAC and you should blow your budget on $500 headphones, since most people probably won't be able to tell the difference, however, I consider it just an accomplishment if people can enjoy their music without the person next to them being able to clearly hear it because they've jacked the volume up to insane levels(a sign of poor earbud fit).
That's all I really care about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140848</id>
	<title>They asked the wrong question</title>
	<author>milosoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1257108480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question they asked was "Which sounds better, channel A or B?" whereas the question to be asked is:</p><p>"The original is channel C. Which sounds more like the original, channel A or channel B?"</p><p>Asking the first question, your subject will pick the track with the higher 'loudness' (a bit of bass/treble boost) almost invariably.</p><p>The latter question is the correct one, as the whole point of recording music is to make it sound like you're actually there in the room with the musicians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question they asked was " Which sounds better , channel A or B ?
" whereas the question to be asked is : " The original is channel C. Which sounds more like the original , channel A or channel B ?
" Asking the first question , your subject will pick the track with the higher 'loudness ' ( a bit of bass/treble boost ) almost invariably.The latter question is the correct one , as the whole point of recording music is to make it sound like you 're actually there in the room with the musicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question they asked was "Which sounds better, channel A or B?
" whereas the question to be asked is:"The original is channel C. Which sounds more like the original, channel A or channel B?
"Asking the first question, your subject will pick the track with the higher 'loudness' (a bit of bass/treble boost) almost invariably.The latter question is the correct one, as the whole point of recording music is to make it sound like you're actually there in the room with the musicians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139556</id>
	<title>It all depends on your source material</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1258478220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the subject says, it will all depend on your source material. Most recordings now are so compressed and level maxed that there are absolutely no dynamics at all. All of it is done in the name of radio since no one wants to be the song that can't be heard. There is a max transmittable volume for a signal, and thus, if your recording leaves in the space to keep dynamics such that a drum's attack has very large peak followed by an extremely fast drop off in sound pressure, that the things like vocals will be relatively quieter than that drum, the drum then becomes the loudest noise of the recording, forcing all other things in the recording to be relative to that peak, which in tern will cause them to be "softer" on the radio for a good quality, high dynamic recording. What almost all audio mixes do now is simply chop off all those peaks so that their song is constantly at a high amplitude throughout. This has the effect of compressing all those peaks down, and losing all that signal quality, and is actually compressing the amount of audio data in the waveform itself since they are shifting the entire wave up in amplitude while keeping the same upper boundary, thus squaring the waveform and losing data, which is no different than lossy compression algorithms for things like MP3. In fact converting a waveform that is already amplitude compressed, can save "data space" while not losing much quality. In fact, it may even add some of those lost dynamics back by sampling at points in the waveform where the wave may be under that peak volume and thus (along with the fewer samples) under-representing the true value amplitude for a section of the waveform.<br> <br>Then of course, you have the fact that audio mixes are being done to try and compensate for piss poor speakers like ear-buds, giving huge boosts to the amplitude of lower frequencies, and trying to cut the amplitude of higher frequencies as well (because let us face it, that 1/16th inch piezoelectric speaker that make-up ear-buds just doesn't have the power or mass to move enough air to reproduce lower frequency sounds with any kind of accuracy). Quality speakers, in a well designed environment will always show the difference in recording quality. When you use poor speakers, you are listening more to what the speaker does to the recording than what might be found in recording quality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the subject says , it will all depend on your source material .
Most recordings now are so compressed and level maxed that there are absolutely no dynamics at all .
All of it is done in the name of radio since no one wants to be the song that ca n't be heard .
There is a max transmittable volume for a signal , and thus , if your recording leaves in the space to keep dynamics such that a drum 's attack has very large peak followed by an extremely fast drop off in sound pressure , that the things like vocals will be relatively quieter than that drum , the drum then becomes the loudest noise of the recording , forcing all other things in the recording to be relative to that peak , which in tern will cause them to be " softer " on the radio for a good quality , high dynamic recording .
What almost all audio mixes do now is simply chop off all those peaks so that their song is constantly at a high amplitude throughout .
This has the effect of compressing all those peaks down , and losing all that signal quality , and is actually compressing the amount of audio data in the waveform itself since they are shifting the entire wave up in amplitude while keeping the same upper boundary , thus squaring the waveform and losing data , which is no different than lossy compression algorithms for things like MP3 .
In fact converting a waveform that is already amplitude compressed , can save " data space " while not losing much quality .
In fact , it may even add some of those lost dynamics back by sampling at points in the waveform where the wave may be under that peak volume and thus ( along with the fewer samples ) under-representing the true value amplitude for a section of the waveform .
Then of course , you have the fact that audio mixes are being done to try and compensate for piss poor speakers like ear-buds , giving huge boosts to the amplitude of lower frequencies , and trying to cut the amplitude of higher frequencies as well ( because let us face it , that 1/16th inch piezoelectric speaker that make-up ear-buds just does n't have the power or mass to move enough air to reproduce lower frequency sounds with any kind of accuracy ) .
Quality speakers , in a well designed environment will always show the difference in recording quality .
When you use poor speakers , you are listening more to what the speaker does to the recording than what might be found in recording quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the subject says, it will all depend on your source material.
Most recordings now are so compressed and level maxed that there are absolutely no dynamics at all.
All of it is done in the name of radio since no one wants to be the song that can't be heard.
There is a max transmittable volume for a signal, and thus, if your recording leaves in the space to keep dynamics such that a drum's attack has very large peak followed by an extremely fast drop off in sound pressure, that the things like vocals will be relatively quieter than that drum, the drum then becomes the loudest noise of the recording, forcing all other things in the recording to be relative to that peak, which in tern will cause them to be "softer" on the radio for a good quality, high dynamic recording.
What almost all audio mixes do now is simply chop off all those peaks so that their song is constantly at a high amplitude throughout.
This has the effect of compressing all those peaks down, and losing all that signal quality, and is actually compressing the amount of audio data in the waveform itself since they are shifting the entire wave up in amplitude while keeping the same upper boundary, thus squaring the waveform and losing data, which is no different than lossy compression algorithms for things like MP3.
In fact converting a waveform that is already amplitude compressed, can save "data space" while not losing much quality.
In fact, it may even add some of those lost dynamics back by sampling at points in the waveform where the wave may be under that peak volume and thus (along with the fewer samples) under-representing the true value amplitude for a section of the waveform.
Then of course, you have the fact that audio mixes are being done to try and compensate for piss poor speakers like ear-buds, giving huge boosts to the amplitude of lower frequencies, and trying to cut the amplitude of higher frequencies as well (because let us face it, that 1/16th inch piezoelectric speaker that make-up ear-buds just doesn't have the power or mass to move enough air to reproduce lower frequency sounds with any kind of accuracy).
Quality speakers, in a well designed environment will always show the difference in recording quality.
When you use poor speakers, you are listening more to what the speaker does to the recording than what might be found in recording quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140674</id>
	<title>Sound cleanup</title>
	<author>SonarNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1257106440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, MP3 or other lossy compression can actually remove some of the bad distortion harmonics from the over-compressed and over-limited material what the big record companies are throwing out these days.</p><p>Any of these tests done on material which has any signal clipping in it, is immediately invalid.</p><p>Most of the CDs from big record companies produced on this century sound horrible. Luckily there are still small record companies producing good material on a multichannel SACD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , MP3 or other lossy compression can actually remove some of the bad distortion harmonics from the over-compressed and over-limited material what the big record companies are throwing out these days.Any of these tests done on material which has any signal clipping in it , is immediately invalid.Most of the CDs from big record companies produced on this century sound horrible .
Luckily there are still small record companies producing good material on a multichannel SACD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, MP3 or other lossy compression can actually remove some of the bad distortion harmonics from the over-compressed and over-limited material what the big record companies are throwing out these days.Any of these tests done on material which has any signal clipping in it, is immediately invalid.Most of the CDs from big record companies produced on this century sound horrible.
Luckily there are still small record companies producing good material on a multichannel SACD...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141224</id>
	<title>So far as I can tell</title>
	<author>boristhespider</author>
	<datestamp>1257070920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this "news" article has managed to find these shocking truths:

a) MP3 encoded with LAME goes transparent to most ears at or below 192kbs, which has been known for a good few years now and with current versions of Lame can be pushed lower still
b) MP3 encoded with LAME at 320kbs is transparent to everyone who isn't deluding themselves, which is hardly a surprise given that MP3 encoded with LAME goes transparent to most ears at or below 192kbs, as been known for a good few years now

Seriously, what is this non-news doing here? There have been plenty of actually controlled tests studying when lossy formats become transparent; and comparing them with FLAC rather than comparing them with the original CD is a meaningless addition since, by definition, unless someone did something seriously stupid during the encoding the FLAC is identical to the CD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this " news " article has managed to find these shocking truths : a ) MP3 encoded with LAME goes transparent to most ears at or below 192kbs , which has been known for a good few years now and with current versions of Lame can be pushed lower still b ) MP3 encoded with LAME at 320kbs is transparent to everyone who is n't deluding themselves , which is hardly a surprise given that MP3 encoded with LAME goes transparent to most ears at or below 192kbs , as been known for a good few years now Seriously , what is this non-news doing here ?
There have been plenty of actually controlled tests studying when lossy formats become transparent ; and comparing them with FLAC rather than comparing them with the original CD is a meaningless addition since , by definition , unless someone did something seriously stupid during the encoding the FLAC is identical to the CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this "news" article has managed to find these shocking truths:

a) MP3 encoded with LAME goes transparent to most ears at or below 192kbs, which has been known for a good few years now and with current versions of Lame can be pushed lower still
b) MP3 encoded with LAME at 320kbs is transparent to everyone who isn't deluding themselves, which is hardly a surprise given that MP3 encoded with LAME goes transparent to most ears at or below 192kbs, as been known for a good few years now

Seriously, what is this non-news doing here?
There have been plenty of actually controlled tests studying when lossy formats become transparent; and comparing them with FLAC rather than comparing them with the original CD is a meaningless addition since, by definition, unless someone did something seriously stupid during the encoding the FLAC is identical to the CD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143780</id>
	<title>(raw) storage is cheap; time often isn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nonetheless, I just rip all my music as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav now for archiving. To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs, because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp. An $80 1TB hard drive can hold $19,000 worth of uncompressed CDs. Sure... in flac format I could store more like $60,000 worth... but who has a $20,000 CD collection let alone a $60,000 one?</p></div><p>Not that you're wrong or that I disagree, but one consideration that some people may wish to make is also transfer time. Moving around an extra few hundreds of gigabytes for transferring to a new drive, or doing backups can suck up time.</p><p>Personally I'd rather spend a little extra time up-front compressing things down using FLAC, so that in the future I don't have to waste time on waiting for file transfers to occur. I'd go with a FLAC 'master' copy and then convert once to (say) a decent AAC bit rate (160 kbps?) for general use. this initial work is then ammortized via having to wait less for any future transfers.</p><p>Remember it also takes time to send stuff to your music player, and bandwidth if you want to stream over your home network. Raw storage may be cheap, but backups, redundancy, and the time it takes to transfer stuff is often not as cheap.</p><p>Everyone has a different trade off of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonetheless , I just rip all my music as .wav now for archiving .
To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs , because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp .
An $ 80 1TB hard drive can hold $ 19,000 worth of uncompressed CDs .
Sure... in flac format I could store more like $ 60,000 worth... but who has a $ 20,000 CD collection let alone a $ 60,000 one ? Not that you 're wrong or that I disagree , but one consideration that some people may wish to make is also transfer time .
Moving around an extra few hundreds of gigabytes for transferring to a new drive , or doing backups can suck up time.Personally I 'd rather spend a little extra time up-front compressing things down using FLAC , so that in the future I do n't have to waste time on waiting for file transfers to occur .
I 'd go with a FLAC 'master ' copy and then convert once to ( say ) a decent AAC bit rate ( 160 kbps ?
) for general use .
this initial work is then ammortized via having to wait less for any future transfers.Remember it also takes time to send stuff to your music player , and bandwidth if you want to stream over your home network .
Raw storage may be cheap , but backups , redundancy , and the time it takes to transfer stuff is often not as cheap.Everyone has a different trade off of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonetheless, I just rip all my music as .wav now for archiving.
To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs, because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp.
An $80 1TB hard drive can hold $19,000 worth of uncompressed CDs.
Sure... in flac format I could store more like $60,000 worth... but who has a $20,000 CD collection let alone a $60,000 one?Not that you're wrong or that I disagree, but one consideration that some people may wish to make is also transfer time.
Moving around an extra few hundreds of gigabytes for transferring to a new drive, or doing backups can suck up time.Personally I'd rather spend a little extra time up-front compressing things down using FLAC, so that in the future I don't have to waste time on waiting for file transfers to occur.
I'd go with a FLAC 'master' copy and then convert once to (say) a decent AAC bit rate (160 kbps?
) for general use.
this initial work is then ammortized via having to wait less for any future transfers.Remember it also takes time to send stuff to your music player, and bandwidth if you want to stream over your home network.
Raw storage may be cheap, but backups, redundancy, and the time it takes to transfer stuff is often not as cheap.Everyone has a different trade off of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024</id>
	<title>Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the mix doesn't sound good on almost any device, it wasn't mixed well. Audiophiles seem to think we don't take the fact that most people don't have high-end audio gear and lossless audio into account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the mix does n't sound good on almost any device , it was n't mixed well .
Audiophiles seem to think we do n't take the fact that most people do n't have high-end audio gear and lossless audio into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the mix doesn't sound good on almost any device, it wasn't mixed well.
Audiophiles seem to think we don't take the fact that most people don't have high-end audio gear and lossless audio into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139318</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258476360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because ads suck ass? maybe it's time webmasters went out and got real jobs instead of throwing up a site full of half-baked rants-as-technical articles, draping it with ads, and thinknig they're 'professionals.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because ads suck ass ?
maybe it 's time webmasters went out and got real jobs instead of throwing up a site full of half-baked rants-as-technical articles , draping it with ads , and thinknig they 're 'professionals .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because ads suck ass?
maybe it's time webmasters went out and got real jobs instead of throwing up a site full of half-baked rants-as-technical articles, draping it with ads, and thinknig they're 'professionals.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.</i> </p><p>I'm sorry, but this simply isn't the case.  Vinyl absolutely <b>cannot</b> "contain" any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least, nothing that was put there intentionally.  The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter.  You might be able to record a very soft low-frequency signal onto vinyl, but given the way human hearing works, that would almost certainly be masked by louder low frequency signals further up the audio spectrum in the music.  Unless you like to sit around and listen to the output of a pure tone generator, this isn't really much of an "advantage" for vinyl.</p><p>Vinyl's inability to handle even moderately loud low bass is the reason why the sound of dance music changed so much starting in the mid-'80s - eventually resulting in things like house music - as CDs became popular and suddenly you could record deep bass at maximum volume and deliver it to consumers unaltered.  I recall hearing Pet Shop Boys "I Want A Dog" in 1988 or thereabouts on a high-end sub/sat system at an audio dealer and thinking, "Holy crap!  How did they get the bass so loud?"  It felt like I'd swallowed a subwoofer it was so loud.  You couldn't physically deliver anything like that on vinyl - you would have to roll the deep bass off by many decibels or the groove would literally go flat.  Even most consumer tape formats would have had trouble handling that much low-frequency signal, especially given the tape duplication methods used at that time (although at least they'd fail less spectacularly, with tape's fairly warm-sounding saturation).</p><p>Discos in the '70s could pump out that kind of deep bass, but they did it using a gadget from dbx called a <i>subharmonic synthesizer</i>, which would produce a note exactly an octave below whatever you fed into it.  They'd feed your typical vinyl recording with its anemic bass into the device, and get this pulsating, throbbing audio out.  But until CD came around there was no way to deliver that to the home, maybe short of half-speed mastered reel to reel or (possibly) metal cassette tape.</p><p>You do get all sorts of low frequency signal coming off of vinyl when you play it, but it's mostly noise - rumble from the motor and pickup in the turntable itself, the scraping of the needle in the groove, low-frequency resonances induced by the playback speakers, and harmonics and low-frequency noise etched into the master itself when that was being cut.  All of that garbage robs power from your amplifier and causes scads of distortion in your speakers, screwing up the real signal you're trying to reproduce.  It's just another way in which vinyl is not only an awful audio format, but a <b>spectacularly</b> awful audio format.  It's not just awful because of what it <i>can't</i> accurately record, it's awful because of all of the noise and artifacts it introduces which cause further distortion of what it has managed to accurately record.</p><p>As for high frequency data, yes vinyl can record signals higher than the 20kHz limit of CD, but if you're over 13 and live in the West it's unlikely you can hear any of it.  Worse, each time you play a record the needle actually damages it, and the high frequencies are damaged the first and the worst.  That's one of the many reasons why the old discrete quad format failed back in the '70s - it used ultrasonic multiplexing to record the quad signal, and that signal rapidly degraded with every playback.  Whoops!  (The matrix quad formats - which didn't rely on ultrasonics - failed for other reasons.)  Beyond that, the vast majority of what signal there is over 20kHz on most vinyl records is pure unadulterated noise which has absolutely nothing to do with the original signal that was recorded.  It's hiss, it's harmonic distortion induced in both the cutting head and in your pickup's needle by lower-frequency signals, it's from clicks and pops caused by dust or by imperfections</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
I 'm sorry , but this simply is n't the case .
Vinyl absolutely can not " contain " any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least , nothing that was put there intentionally .
The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter .
You might be able to record a very soft low-frequency signal onto vinyl , but given the way human hearing works , that would almost certainly be masked by louder low frequency signals further up the audio spectrum in the music .
Unless you like to sit around and listen to the output of a pure tone generator , this is n't really much of an " advantage " for vinyl.Vinyl 's inability to handle even moderately loud low bass is the reason why the sound of dance music changed so much starting in the mid-'80s - eventually resulting in things like house music - as CDs became popular and suddenly you could record deep bass at maximum volume and deliver it to consumers unaltered .
I recall hearing Pet Shop Boys " I Want A Dog " in 1988 or thereabouts on a high-end sub/sat system at an audio dealer and thinking , " Holy crap !
How did they get the bass so loud ?
" It felt like I 'd swallowed a subwoofer it was so loud .
You could n't physically deliver anything like that on vinyl - you would have to roll the deep bass off by many decibels or the groove would literally go flat .
Even most consumer tape formats would have had trouble handling that much low-frequency signal , especially given the tape duplication methods used at that time ( although at least they 'd fail less spectacularly , with tape 's fairly warm-sounding saturation ) .Discos in the '70s could pump out that kind of deep bass , but they did it using a gadget from dbx called a subharmonic synthesizer , which would produce a note exactly an octave below whatever you fed into it .
They 'd feed your typical vinyl recording with its anemic bass into the device , and get this pulsating , throbbing audio out .
But until CD came around there was no way to deliver that to the home , maybe short of half-speed mastered reel to reel or ( possibly ) metal cassette tape.You do get all sorts of low frequency signal coming off of vinyl when you play it , but it 's mostly noise - rumble from the motor and pickup in the turntable itself , the scraping of the needle in the groove , low-frequency resonances induced by the playback speakers , and harmonics and low-frequency noise etched into the master itself when that was being cut .
All of that garbage robs power from your amplifier and causes scads of distortion in your speakers , screwing up the real signal you 're trying to reproduce .
It 's just another way in which vinyl is not only an awful audio format , but a spectacularly awful audio format .
It 's not just awful because of what it ca n't accurately record , it 's awful because of all of the noise and artifacts it introduces which cause further distortion of what it has managed to accurately record.As for high frequency data , yes vinyl can record signals higher than the 20kHz limit of CD , but if you 're over 13 and live in the West it 's unlikely you can hear any of it .
Worse , each time you play a record the needle actually damages it , and the high frequencies are damaged the first and the worst .
That 's one of the many reasons why the old discrete quad format failed back in the '70s - it used ultrasonic multiplexing to record the quad signal , and that signal rapidly degraded with every playback .
Whoops ! ( The matrix quad formats - which did n't rely on ultrasonics - failed for other reasons .
) Beyond that , the vast majority of what signal there is over 20kHz on most vinyl records is pure unadulterated noise which has absolutely nothing to do with the original signal that was recorded .
It 's hiss , it 's harmonic distortion induced in both the cutting head and in your pickup 's needle by lower-frequency signals , it 's from clicks and pops caused by dust or by imperfections</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't the case.
Vinyl absolutely cannot "contain" any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least, nothing that was put there intentionally.
The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter.
You might be able to record a very soft low-frequency signal onto vinyl, but given the way human hearing works, that would almost certainly be masked by louder low frequency signals further up the audio spectrum in the music.
Unless you like to sit around and listen to the output of a pure tone generator, this isn't really much of an "advantage" for vinyl.Vinyl's inability to handle even moderately loud low bass is the reason why the sound of dance music changed so much starting in the mid-'80s - eventually resulting in things like house music - as CDs became popular and suddenly you could record deep bass at maximum volume and deliver it to consumers unaltered.
I recall hearing Pet Shop Boys "I Want A Dog" in 1988 or thereabouts on a high-end sub/sat system at an audio dealer and thinking, "Holy crap!
How did they get the bass so loud?
"  It felt like I'd swallowed a subwoofer it was so loud.
You couldn't physically deliver anything like that on vinyl - you would have to roll the deep bass off by many decibels or the groove would literally go flat.
Even most consumer tape formats would have had trouble handling that much low-frequency signal, especially given the tape duplication methods used at that time (although at least they'd fail less spectacularly, with tape's fairly warm-sounding saturation).Discos in the '70s could pump out that kind of deep bass, but they did it using a gadget from dbx called a subharmonic synthesizer, which would produce a note exactly an octave below whatever you fed into it.
They'd feed your typical vinyl recording with its anemic bass into the device, and get this pulsating, throbbing audio out.
But until CD came around there was no way to deliver that to the home, maybe short of half-speed mastered reel to reel or (possibly) metal cassette tape.You do get all sorts of low frequency signal coming off of vinyl when you play it, but it's mostly noise - rumble from the motor and pickup in the turntable itself, the scraping of the needle in the groove, low-frequency resonances induced by the playback speakers, and harmonics and low-frequency noise etched into the master itself when that was being cut.
All of that garbage robs power from your amplifier and causes scads of distortion in your speakers, screwing up the real signal you're trying to reproduce.
It's just another way in which vinyl is not only an awful audio format, but a spectacularly awful audio format.
It's not just awful because of what it can't accurately record, it's awful because of all of the noise and artifacts it introduces which cause further distortion of what it has managed to accurately record.As for high frequency data, yes vinyl can record signals higher than the 20kHz limit of CD, but if you're over 13 and live in the West it's unlikely you can hear any of it.
Worse, each time you play a record the needle actually damages it, and the high frequencies are damaged the first and the worst.
That's one of the many reasons why the old discrete quad format failed back in the '70s - it used ultrasonic multiplexing to record the quad signal, and that signal rapidly degraded with every playback.
Whoops!  (The matrix quad formats - which didn't rely on ultrasonics - failed for other reasons.
)  Beyond that, the vast majority of what signal there is over 20kHz on most vinyl records is pure unadulterated noise which has absolutely nothing to do with the original signal that was recorded.
It's hiss, it's harmonic distortion induced in both the cutting head and in your pickup's needle by lower-frequency signals, it's from clicks and pops caused by dust or by imperfections</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148162</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me first say that I am not an audiophile, although I do have what seems to be better than average hearing. I am a DJ however, and I utilize both vinyl and digital in my performances (digital is usually 320k MP3 or WAV formats). Your post is as flawed as it is lengthy, going deep into tl;dr territory. To say that you can't deliver deep bass frequencies on vinyl is just wrong, full stop. I have approximately 1500 12" and 7" records, and an even more abundant digital catalog, and I can attest to not only the presence of massive bass and sub-bass on vinyl, but that vinyl matches digital in terms of low-end (for the same recordings). High end is an entirely different matter, especially with dirty or worn out grooves (thankfully that's what Gruv-Glide and elliptical stylii are for).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me first say that I am not an audiophile , although I do have what seems to be better than average hearing .
I am a DJ however , and I utilize both vinyl and digital in my performances ( digital is usually 320k MP3 or WAV formats ) .
Your post is as flawed as it is lengthy , going deep into tl ; dr territory .
To say that you ca n't deliver deep bass frequencies on vinyl is just wrong , full stop .
I have approximately 1500 12 " and 7 " records , and an even more abundant digital catalog , and I can attest to not only the presence of massive bass and sub-bass on vinyl , but that vinyl matches digital in terms of low-end ( for the same recordings ) .
High end is an entirely different matter , especially with dirty or worn out grooves ( thankfully that 's what Gruv-Glide and elliptical stylii are for ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me first say that I am not an audiophile, although I do have what seems to be better than average hearing.
I am a DJ however, and I utilize both vinyl and digital in my performances (digital is usually 320k MP3 or WAV formats).
Your post is as flawed as it is lengthy, going deep into tl;dr territory.
To say that you can't deliver deep bass frequencies on vinyl is just wrong, full stop.
I have approximately 1500 12" and 7" records, and an even more abundant digital catalog, and I can attest to not only the presence of massive bass and sub-bass on vinyl, but that vinyl matches digital in terms of low-end (for the same recordings).
High end is an entirely different matter, especially with dirty or worn out grooves (thankfully that's what Gruv-Glide and elliptical stylii are for).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140306</id>
	<title>adblock and flashblock</title>
	<author>ProfessionalCookie</author>
	<datestamp>1258484640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded. The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So don't post it.</p><p>Not like we haven't covered this before, several times on less obnoxious sites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended , lest you be blinded .
The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version .
So do n't post it.Not like we have n't covered this before , several times on less obnoxious sites ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.
The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version.
So don't post it.Not like we haven't covered this before, several times on less obnoxious sites ;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146150</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Holy crap! How did they get the bass so loud?"</p></div></blockquote><p>EQ and compression!</p><blockquote><div><p>It felt like I'd swallowed a subwoofer it was so loud. You couldn't physically deliver anything like that on vinyl</p></div></blockquote><p>This is bullshit, bass reproduction is not so constrained by the playback media as the playback equipment.  A 15" loud speaker delivers more low frequency content than 8x10" loud speakers.  However, <a href="http://www.ampeg.com/products/classic/svt810e/index.html" title="ampeg.com" rel="nofollow">8x10s</a> [ampeg.com] move more air so they are subjectively louder and deliver a better defined sound -- something most people hear as "more bass". Stand in front of a typical dub sound system and you'd not know from the bass content if the source material is on vinyl or CD (unless there's obvious low end stereo which, as you obviously know -- is not possible on vinyl).</p><blockquote><div><p>most studio microphones aren't even sensitive to frequencies beyond 20kHz</p></div></blockquote><p>Typically they'll roll off above 16k, but there's program content well beyond that.  I can hear a discernable difference to the harmonics of many instruments if I apply a 24db/octave low pass filter at 16k and I've played in rock bands for 20 years.</p><blockquote><div><p>Vinyl is a really sh*tty audio format,</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really, it's entirely subjective if a distortion characteristic is audibly pleasing or not.  I'm not an audiophile; I like transformer balanced input stages, I like valve amps, I like transistor based distortion, I like tape saturation and I like vinyl.  We call it character or color and spend a considerable amount of time trying to impart digital recordings with such pleasing technical imperfections.  Thus, the surface noise and distortions inherent with vinyl conspire to make something like the Who's My Generation sound fucking awesome on 7" vinyl.  By comparison, that same track sounds relatively dull and lifeless on CD.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Holy crap !
How did they get the bass so loud ?
" EQ and compression ! It felt like I 'd swallowed a subwoofer it was so loud .
You could n't physically deliver anything like that on vinylThis is bullshit , bass reproduction is not so constrained by the playback media as the playback equipment .
A 15 " loud speaker delivers more low frequency content than 8x10 " loud speakers .
However , 8x10s [ ampeg.com ] move more air so they are subjectively louder and deliver a better defined sound -- something most people hear as " more bass " .
Stand in front of a typical dub sound system and you 'd not know from the bass content if the source material is on vinyl or CD ( unless there 's obvious low end stereo which , as you obviously know -- is not possible on vinyl ) .most studio microphones are n't even sensitive to frequencies beyond 20kHzTypically they 'll roll off above 16k , but there 's program content well beyond that .
I can hear a discernable difference to the harmonics of many instruments if I apply a 24db/octave low pass filter at 16k and I 've played in rock bands for 20 years.Vinyl is a really sh * tty audio format,Not really , it 's entirely subjective if a distortion characteristic is audibly pleasing or not .
I 'm not an audiophile ; I like transformer balanced input stages , I like valve amps , I like transistor based distortion , I like tape saturation and I like vinyl .
We call it character or color and spend a considerable amount of time trying to impart digital recordings with such pleasing technical imperfections .
Thus , the surface noise and distortions inherent with vinyl conspire to make something like the Who 's My Generation sound fucking awesome on 7 " vinyl .
By comparison , that same track sounds relatively dull and lifeless on CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Holy crap!
How did they get the bass so loud?
"EQ and compression!It felt like I'd swallowed a subwoofer it was so loud.
You couldn't physically deliver anything like that on vinylThis is bullshit, bass reproduction is not so constrained by the playback media as the playback equipment.
A 15" loud speaker delivers more low frequency content than 8x10" loud speakers.
However, 8x10s [ampeg.com] move more air so they are subjectively louder and deliver a better defined sound -- something most people hear as "more bass".
Stand in front of a typical dub sound system and you'd not know from the bass content if the source material is on vinyl or CD (unless there's obvious low end stereo which, as you obviously know -- is not possible on vinyl).most studio microphones aren't even sensitive to frequencies beyond 20kHzTypically they'll roll off above 16k, but there's program content well beyond that.
I can hear a discernable difference to the harmonics of many instruments if I apply a 24db/octave low pass filter at 16k and I've played in rock bands for 20 years.Vinyl is a really sh*tty audio format,Not really, it's entirely subjective if a distortion characteristic is audibly pleasing or not.
I'm not an audiophile; I like transformer balanced input stages, I like valve amps, I like transistor based distortion, I like tape saturation and I like vinyl.
We call it character or color and spend a considerable amount of time trying to impart digital recordings with such pleasing technical imperfections.
Thus, the surface noise and distortions inherent with vinyl conspire to make something like the Who's My Generation sound fucking awesome on 7" vinyl.
By comparison, that same track sounds relatively dull and lifeless on CD.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139778</id>
	<title>Re:Kids prefer that cold, dry, digital sizzle.</title>
	<author>jeff.j.jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1258479960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to try to look at this kind of thing with electroencephalography. Is there a noticeable change in the brain when music is enjoyed in different formats? What about the loudness effect?

Google scholar:
<a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=EEG++music&amp;btnG=Search&amp;as\_sdt=2000&amp;as\_ylo=&amp;as\_vis=0" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=EEG++music&amp;btnG=Search&amp;as\_sdt=2000&amp;as\_ylo=&amp;as\_vis=0</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to try to look at this kind of thing with electroencephalography .
Is there a noticeable change in the brain when music is enjoyed in different formats ?
What about the loudness effect ?
Google scholar : http : //scholar.google.com/scholar ? hl = en&amp;q = EEG + + music&amp;btnG = Search&amp;as \ _sdt = 2000&amp;as \ _ylo = &amp;as \ _vis = 0 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to try to look at this kind of thing with electroencephalography.
Is there a noticeable change in the brain when music is enjoyed in different formats?
What about the loudness effect?
Google scholar:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=EEG++music&amp;btnG=Search&amp;as\_sdt=2000&amp;as\_ylo=&amp;as\_vis=0 [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143130</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1257089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Let me spend half a minute on vinyl vs CD vs MP3.  CD and MP3 contain data that your ears can hear and they both contain that data very accurately.  I certainly can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 recorded at 192 KBPS.  Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.  You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.  This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive.  Anyone can hear and feel this, but usually they can't describe it or perhaps even notice it.  They show the difference by not wanting to get up and do dishes, or homework, or play a game, but by wanting to sit and close their eyes and just listen to the music.

 </p></div><p>That nice warm sound/feeling you're getting from you tube amp and albums, its called <b>distortion</b>. It just so happens that its a form of distortion you like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me spend half a minute on vinyl vs CD vs MP3 .
CD and MP3 contain data that your ears can hear and they both contain that data very accurately .
I certainly ca n't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 recorded at 192 KBPS .
Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
You ca n't hear this data , but you can feel it , physically with your body .
This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive .
Anyone can hear and feel this , but usually they ca n't describe it or perhaps even notice it .
They show the difference by not wanting to get up and do dishes , or homework , or play a game , but by wanting to sit and close their eyes and just listen to the music .
That nice warm sound/feeling you 're getting from you tube amp and albums , its called distortion .
It just so happens that its a form of distortion you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Let me spend half a minute on vinyl vs CD vs MP3.
CD and MP3 contain data that your ears can hear and they both contain that data very accurately.
I certainly can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 recorded at 192 KBPS.
Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.
This sensation enhances the realness of the recording and makes it feel more engaging and more alive.
Anyone can hear and feel this, but usually they can't describe it or perhaps even notice it.
They show the difference by not wanting to get up and do dishes, or homework, or play a game, but by wanting to sit and close their eyes and just listen to the music.
That nice warm sound/feeling you're getting from you tube amp and albums, its called distortion.
It just so happens that its a form of distortion you like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143182</id>
	<title>"Most People" can't hear squat.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1257089820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people, in my experience, can't discern jack diddly squat with their ears.<br><br>Most people can't hear the difference between a singer with years of vocal training versus a random person off the street who holds consonants, changes keys at random, and is a quarter tone flat half the time.  Most people can't hear the difference between proper counterpoint and simple harmony.  Heck, a lot of people can't hear the difference between melody alone versus melody with harmony.  They just plain don't year the extra parts.  Furthermore, most people can't tell the difference between a new CD versus a cassette tape that's been floating around the console and floor of a car for five years getting heated by the sun, chilled in winter, and dirty from salty-snow off of boots.  Basically, hoi polloi can't tell the difference between music and noise.<br><br>But people with actual *ears* can tell.  Music with mp3 compression sounds like jpeg images look:  horrible.  Ogg a little better, but still clearly inferior.  FLAC, assuming your system isn't too heavily loaded, sounds just like WAV, very comparable in quality to a CD.<br><br>While we're at it, a lot of people can't see the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit color and can't see any difference between serif and sans-serif fonts (unless one's a lot bigger or bolder than the other), let alone stuff like kerning.  A lot of people just plain never learn to pay attention to details.<br><br>This does not mean mp3 is a good format for music.  It must means most people have no discernment, which, frankly, is nothing new.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people , in my experience , ca n't discern jack diddly squat with their ears.Most people ca n't hear the difference between a singer with years of vocal training versus a random person off the street who holds consonants , changes keys at random , and is a quarter tone flat half the time .
Most people ca n't hear the difference between proper counterpoint and simple harmony .
Heck , a lot of people ca n't hear the difference between melody alone versus melody with harmony .
They just plain do n't year the extra parts .
Furthermore , most people ca n't tell the difference between a new CD versus a cassette tape that 's been floating around the console and floor of a car for five years getting heated by the sun , chilled in winter , and dirty from salty-snow off of boots .
Basically , hoi polloi ca n't tell the difference between music and noise.But people with actual * ears * can tell .
Music with mp3 compression sounds like jpeg images look : horrible .
Ogg a little better , but still clearly inferior .
FLAC , assuming your system is n't too heavily loaded , sounds just like WAV , very comparable in quality to a CD.While we 're at it , a lot of people ca n't see the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit color and ca n't see any difference between serif and sans-serif fonts ( unless one 's a lot bigger or bolder than the other ) , let alone stuff like kerning .
A lot of people just plain never learn to pay attention to details.This does not mean mp3 is a good format for music .
It must means most people have no discernment , which , frankly , is nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people, in my experience, can't discern jack diddly squat with their ears.Most people can't hear the difference between a singer with years of vocal training versus a random person off the street who holds consonants, changes keys at random, and is a quarter tone flat half the time.
Most people can't hear the difference between proper counterpoint and simple harmony.
Heck, a lot of people can't hear the difference between melody alone versus melody with harmony.
They just plain don't year the extra parts.
Furthermore, most people can't tell the difference between a new CD versus a cassette tape that's been floating around the console and floor of a car for five years getting heated by the sun, chilled in winter, and dirty from salty-snow off of boots.
Basically, hoi polloi can't tell the difference between music and noise.But people with actual *ears* can tell.
Music with mp3 compression sounds like jpeg images look:  horrible.
Ogg a little better, but still clearly inferior.
FLAC, assuming your system isn't too heavily loaded, sounds just like WAV, very comparable in quality to a CD.While we're at it, a lot of people can't see the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit color and can't see any difference between serif and sans-serif fonts (unless one's a lot bigger or bolder than the other), let alone stuff like kerning.
A lot of people just plain never learn to pay attention to details.This does not mean mp3 is a good format for music.
It must means most people have no discernment, which, frankly, is nothing new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150166</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next time someone tries to get into the vinyl vs CD argument with me I'm going to cut and paste what you wrote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next time someone tries to get into the vinyl vs CD argument with me I 'm going to cut and paste what you wrote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next time someone tries to get into the vinyl vs CD argument with me I'm going to cut and paste what you wrote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145096</id>
	<title>There is a difference.</title>
	<author>VGVL</author>
	<datestamp>1257096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would call myself a "digital audiophile" I suppose, since I fail to see that vinyl can have better sound quality than a good digital studio master.</p><p>On any system you can buy at BestBuy (Bose) chances are you won't see much difference between FLAC and MP3. The speakers aren't up to par, but most importantly the DAC isn't good enough.</p><p>I did blind listening tests with my Bowers &amp; Wilkins 800 speakers and with a Burr Brown DAC the difference between 320kbps MP3 and Apple Lossless is slight but noticeable. With a dedicated PS Audio DAC the difference is very apparent, mostly in the higher frequencies.</p><p>I also purchase 24-bit studio masters from Linn Records and they really are better than CD quality. The detail and dynamic range is impressive. It is so engaging that you will find yourself listening to albums again, just for the pleasure of hearing beautiful music.</p><p>What seems to be the norm is that most CDs mastered in 1975-1985 sound better than most CDs mastered today, so if the original CD is mediocre to begin with then chances are you won't see much difference when you encode it to lossy, as the dynamic range is already compressed on the CD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would call myself a " digital audiophile " I suppose , since I fail to see that vinyl can have better sound quality than a good digital studio master.On any system you can buy at BestBuy ( Bose ) chances are you wo n't see much difference between FLAC and MP3 .
The speakers are n't up to par , but most importantly the DAC is n't good enough.I did blind listening tests with my Bowers &amp; Wilkins 800 speakers and with a Burr Brown DAC the difference between 320kbps MP3 and Apple Lossless is slight but noticeable .
With a dedicated PS Audio DAC the difference is very apparent , mostly in the higher frequencies.I also purchase 24-bit studio masters from Linn Records and they really are better than CD quality .
The detail and dynamic range is impressive .
It is so engaging that you will find yourself listening to albums again , just for the pleasure of hearing beautiful music.What seems to be the norm is that most CDs mastered in 1975-1985 sound better than most CDs mastered today , so if the original CD is mediocre to begin with then chances are you wo n't see much difference when you encode it to lossy , as the dynamic range is already compressed on the CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would call myself a "digital audiophile" I suppose, since I fail to see that vinyl can have better sound quality than a good digital studio master.On any system you can buy at BestBuy (Bose) chances are you won't see much difference between FLAC and MP3.
The speakers aren't up to par, but most importantly the DAC isn't good enough.I did blind listening tests with my Bowers &amp; Wilkins 800 speakers and with a Burr Brown DAC the difference between 320kbps MP3 and Apple Lossless is slight but noticeable.
With a dedicated PS Audio DAC the difference is very apparent, mostly in the higher frequencies.I also purchase 24-bit studio masters from Linn Records and they really are better than CD quality.
The detail and dynamic range is impressive.
It is so engaging that you will find yourself listening to albums again, just for the pleasure of hearing beautiful music.What seems to be the norm is that most CDs mastered in 1975-1985 sound better than most CDs mastered today, so if the original CD is mediocre to begin with then chances are you won't see much difference when you encode it to lossy, as the dynamic range is already compressed on the CD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140690</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What planet are you living on? There are a truckload of factors that determine what is "good music" or not. People do not on the whole listen to music to revel in the glory of the engineers or mixing. Often times they like the lyrics, or from association of a song with a particular time or place in their lives. While I can enjoy "mak&#237;ng time and space" to listen to something "high quality" in a quiet room with candles while touching myself, it is ludicrous to think that it's not "valid" to enjoy a 128 bit MP3 on my laptop speakers because the "music" I am playing was when I met my wife, or had my first kid, or kiss, or whatever. Get real. People don't listen to albums because the world has changed my friend (and no, i am not saying for the better), because of the recording industry maybe, people have been pushed crap where 2 good songs go with 8 shite ones and you get to pay for all of them, and people want to have more variety and dip in and out of music, why is the old concept of an album "the correct one" anyway. Not saying it isn't, but where is some interesting reading to discuss it? I would love to see it<br>Sorry, I do appreciate your own opinion, and may well agree with you on many things but this post here just seems to be a bit out of whack with the reality I see, from observing the world around me. Rightly or wrongly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What planet are you living on ?
There are a truckload of factors that determine what is " good music " or not .
People do not on the whole listen to music to revel in the glory of the engineers or mixing .
Often times they like the lyrics , or from association of a song with a particular time or place in their lives .
While I can enjoy " mak   ng time and space " to listen to something " high quality " in a quiet room with candles while touching myself , it is ludicrous to think that it 's not " valid " to enjoy a 128 bit MP3 on my laptop speakers because the " music " I am playing was when I met my wife , or had my first kid , or kiss , or whatever .
Get real .
People do n't listen to albums because the world has changed my friend ( and no , i am not saying for the better ) , because of the recording industry maybe , people have been pushed crap where 2 good songs go with 8 shite ones and you get to pay for all of them , and people want to have more variety and dip in and out of music , why is the old concept of an album " the correct one " anyway .
Not saying it is n't , but where is some interesting reading to discuss it ?
I would love to see itSorry , I do appreciate your own opinion , and may well agree with you on many things but this post here just seems to be a bit out of whack with the reality I see , from observing the world around me .
Rightly or wrongly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What planet are you living on?
There are a truckload of factors that determine what is "good music" or not.
People do not on the whole listen to music to revel in the glory of the engineers or mixing.
Often times they like the lyrics, or from association of a song with a particular time or place in their lives.
While I can enjoy "makíng time and space" to listen to something "high quality" in a quiet room with candles while touching myself, it is ludicrous to think that it's not "valid" to enjoy a 128 bit MP3 on my laptop speakers because the "music" I am playing was when I met my wife, or had my first kid, or kiss, or whatever.
Get real.
People don't listen to albums because the world has changed my friend (and no, i am not saying for the better), because of the recording industry maybe, people have been pushed crap where 2 good songs go with 8 shite ones and you get to pay for all of them, and people want to have more variety and dip in and out of music, why is the old concept of an album "the correct one" anyway.
Not saying it isn't, but where is some interesting reading to discuss it?
I would love to see itSorry, I do appreciate your own opinion, and may well agree with you on many things but this post here just seems to be a bit out of whack with the reality I see, from observing the world around me.
Rightly or wrongly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142074</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>frank\_carmody</author>
	<datestamp>1257081900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only music that doesn't suffer badly from mp3's lossy distortion is electronica and its related genres.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></div><p>Ahh, no. Drum &amp; bass is the 'textbook' example of music that gets hacked at low bitrates. (I take it that DnB is a 'related genre'.) Now, of course, there are excellent rips of very bassy &amp; snappy hi-hatted DnB tracks at lowish bitrates but these are all vbr. But put these up on a 15k rave rig and the bass is no longer punching you in the chest I can assure you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only music that does n't suffer badly from mp3 's lossy distortion is electronica and its related genres.--BMOAhh , no .
Drum &amp; bass is the 'textbook ' example of music that gets hacked at low bitrates .
( I take it that DnB is a 'related genre' .
) Now , of course , there are excellent rips of very bassy &amp; snappy hi-hatted DnB tracks at lowish bitrates but these are all vbr .
But put these up on a 15k rave rig and the bass is no longer punching you in the chest I can assure you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only music that doesn't suffer badly from mp3's lossy distortion is electronica and its related genres.--BMOAhh, no.
Drum &amp; bass is the 'textbook' example of music that gets hacked at low bitrates.
(I take it that DnB is a 'related genre'.
) Now, of course, there are excellent rips of very bassy &amp; snappy hi-hatted DnB tracks at lowish bitrates but these are all vbr.
But put these up on a 15k rave rig and the bass is no longer punching you in the chest I can assure you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139736</id>
	<title>"Sound Best" != "Can't tell"</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1258479720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounding best is not a measure if one can tell the difference between formats!<br>
<br>
Best is subjective. And if someone picks 320kbps MP3 as 'best' over FLAC 4/5 times there IS a NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE.<br>
I can (with most tracks) easily pick out the 128bit MP3 in my car, or on my home stereo. I don't even have to listen back to back. I think it sounds bad. 160kbps and well I can't tell for the most part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounding best is not a measure if one can tell the difference between formats !
Best is subjective .
And if someone picks 320kbps MP3 as 'best ' over FLAC 4/5 times there IS a NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE .
I can ( with most tracks ) easily pick out the 128bit MP3 in my car , or on my home stereo .
I do n't even have to listen back to back .
I think it sounds bad .
160kbps and well I ca n't tell for the most part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounding best is not a measure if one can tell the difference between formats!
Best is subjective.
And if someone picks 320kbps MP3 as 'best' over FLAC 4/5 times there IS a NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE.
I can (with most tracks) easily pick out the 128bit MP3 in my car, or on my home stereo.
I don't even have to listen back to back.
I think it sounds bad.
160kbps and well I can't tell for the most part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139238</id>
	<title>I get headaches from listening</title>
	<author>addikt10</author>
	<datestamp>1258475820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me, it is easy.  If I spend hours listening to lossy compressed music, I start to get headaches.  It doesn't happen when I'm listening to lossless compression. </p><p>For me, that is end of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me , it is easy .
If I spend hours listening to lossy compressed music , I start to get headaches .
It does n't happen when I 'm listening to lossless compression .
For me , that is end of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me, it is easy.
If I spend hours listening to lossy compressed music, I start to get headaches.
It doesn't happen when I'm listening to lossless compression.
For me, that is end of story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139486</id>
	<title>quality 9 ogg</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1258477620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rip cd's and encode at about 320 (quality 9) oggs.  Most songs don't need that level of quality, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference from one encoded lower.  But there are a few where a higher bitrate really is required.  And I'm not going to experiment with each song individually to find what's optimum for it.  So -q 9 for everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rip cd 's and encode at about 320 ( quality 9 ) oggs .
Most songs do n't need that level of quality , I would n't be able to tell the difference from one encoded lower .
But there are a few where a higher bitrate really is required .
And I 'm not going to experiment with each song individually to find what 's optimum for it .
So -q 9 for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rip cd's and encode at about 320 (quality 9) oggs.
Most songs don't need that level of quality, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference from one encoded lower.
But there are a few where a higher bitrate really is required.
And I'm not going to experiment with each song individually to find what's optimum for it.
So -q 9 for everything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141798</id>
	<title>Yes, we do.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that, although not everyone can recognize at the first place, most of people can 'sense' the different when comparing lossy audio with lossless audio (they may not be able describe the different, btw). Especially the very low bitrate lossy audio (128k and lower).</p><p>The lossy compression is to analyze the audio data and remove what it think that data won't be noticed by the human. So if you listen carefully, you should notice what is 'missing' from the lossy audio file.</p><p>Also, badly compressed file tends to have artifacts which is very easy to notice. I have some examples of those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that , although not everyone can recognize at the first place , most of people can 'sense ' the different when comparing lossy audio with lossless audio ( they may not be able describe the different , btw ) .
Especially the very low bitrate lossy audio ( 128k and lower ) .The lossy compression is to analyze the audio data and remove what it think that data wo n't be noticed by the human .
So if you listen carefully , you should notice what is 'missing ' from the lossy audio file.Also , badly compressed file tends to have artifacts which is very easy to notice .
I have some examples of those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that, although not everyone can recognize at the first place, most of people can 'sense' the different when comparing lossy audio with lossless audio (they may not be able describe the different, btw).
Especially the very low bitrate lossy audio (128k and lower).The lossy compression is to analyze the audio data and remove what it think that data won't be noticed by the human.
So if you listen carefully, you should notice what is 'missing' from the lossy audio file.Also, badly compressed file tends to have artifacts which is very easy to notice.
I have some examples of those.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>tabrnaker</author>
	<datestamp>1258484820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with any digital format is the that the sound is broken up into discrete bits.  Even a lower quality vinyl can feel rounder and more 3d than a high quality digital recording.<p>Even more noticeable when your sense run a lot faster than the average humans, if you can see scan lines on a crt at 120hz it's likely you'll hear the 'holes' and steps in digital music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with any digital format is the that the sound is broken up into discrete bits .
Even a lower quality vinyl can feel rounder and more 3d than a high quality digital recording.Even more noticeable when your sense run a lot faster than the average humans , if you can see scan lines on a crt at 120hz it 's likely you 'll hear the 'holes ' and steps in digital music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with any digital format is the that the sound is broken up into discrete bits.
Even a lower quality vinyl can feel rounder and more 3d than a high quality digital recording.Even more noticeable when your sense run a lot faster than the average humans, if you can see scan lines on a crt at 120hz it's likely you'll hear the 'holes' and steps in digital music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143668</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You lose information in digital because waveforms are approximated. Digital has a lower noise floor, more dynamic range, is cleaner, more reliable and consistent etc etc etc, but it's still an approximation of an analog thing, which is a wave form.</p><p>It's not opinion, it's a fact and can be demonstrated visually and with your ears. Whether a given audiophile can actually tell the difference is a whole different story.</p><p>Those tiny wiggles in grooves are not an approximation, they carry the full amount of tonal information which, because of the nature of digital, is approximated in a digital recording. It's a very good approximation, so good so as to be able to fool most people's ears, but it is after all an approximation.</p><p>The effect can be seen and felt in bass frequencies and transients the most [most being relative, the auditory difference is barely perceptible, if at all]. Analog *is* more accurate, it's also more limited, harder to deal with, more fragile, requires greater expertise, is inconsistent and definitely more expensive. On the flip side, when you clip transients on an analog tape deck, the result is pleasing and musical, when you do that on digital, it's pretty harsh.</p><p>I do all of my recording digitally and don't even own a turntable, but I used to do analog and know both intimately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You lose information in digital because waveforms are approximated .
Digital has a lower noise floor , more dynamic range , is cleaner , more reliable and consistent etc etc etc , but it 's still an approximation of an analog thing , which is a wave form.It 's not opinion , it 's a fact and can be demonstrated visually and with your ears .
Whether a given audiophile can actually tell the difference is a whole different story.Those tiny wiggles in grooves are not an approximation , they carry the full amount of tonal information which , because of the nature of digital , is approximated in a digital recording .
It 's a very good approximation , so good so as to be able to fool most people 's ears , but it is after all an approximation.The effect can be seen and felt in bass frequencies and transients the most [ most being relative , the auditory difference is barely perceptible , if at all ] .
Analog * is * more accurate , it 's also more limited , harder to deal with , more fragile , requires greater expertise , is inconsistent and definitely more expensive .
On the flip side , when you clip transients on an analog tape deck , the result is pleasing and musical , when you do that on digital , it 's pretty harsh.I do all of my recording digitally and do n't even own a turntable , but I used to do analog and know both intimately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You lose information in digital because waveforms are approximated.
Digital has a lower noise floor, more dynamic range, is cleaner, more reliable and consistent etc etc etc, but it's still an approximation of an analog thing, which is a wave form.It's not opinion, it's a fact and can be demonstrated visually and with your ears.
Whether a given audiophile can actually tell the difference is a whole different story.Those tiny wiggles in grooves are not an approximation, they carry the full amount of tonal information which, because of the nature of digital, is approximated in a digital recording.
It's a very good approximation, so good so as to be able to fool most people's ears, but it is after all an approximation.The effect can be seen and felt in bass frequencies and transients the most [most being relative, the auditory difference is barely perceptible, if at all].
Analog *is* more accurate, it's also more limited, harder to deal with, more fragile, requires greater expertise, is inconsistent and definitely more expensive.
On the flip side, when you clip transients on an analog tape deck, the result is pleasing and musical, when you do that on digital, it's pretty harsh.I do all of my recording digitally and don't even own a turntable, but I used to do analog and know both intimately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142782</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1257087780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll explain this effect to you: you just like to think you're superior, some kind of Ubermensch. That's all there is to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll explain this effect to you : you just like to think you 're superior , some kind of Ubermensch .
That 's all there is to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll explain this effect to you: you just like to think you're superior, some kind of Ubermensch.
That's all there is to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145638</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should always rip to FLAC for archival purposes.  That way you can save the tag information.  In the event you subsequently want to transcode the files to MP3 (or whatever) for use with your portable you still have the tags, rather than type it all in after the fact.  Foobar does a pretty nice job of translating FLAC format to MP3, by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should always rip to FLAC for archival purposes .
That way you can save the tag information .
In the event you subsequently want to transcode the files to MP3 ( or whatever ) for use with your portable you still have the tags , rather than type it all in after the fact .
Foobar does a pretty nice job of translating FLAC format to MP3 , by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should always rip to FLAC for archival purposes.
That way you can save the tag information.
In the event you subsequently want to transcode the files to MP3 (or whatever) for use with your portable you still have the tags, rather than type it all in after the fact.
Foobar does a pretty nice job of translating FLAC format to MP3, by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142314</id>
	<title>Re:Training and experience matter</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1257084420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>At 192K and a good pair of headphones with good material I think most people could learn pretty quickly to pick up the difference</i> <p>Why on earth would I ever want to do that?  I enjoy my MP3s now.  You're saying I should study how to pick up the difference, so I can get totally fucking annoyed by all but the most perfect sound files?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 192K and a good pair of headphones with good material I think most people could learn pretty quickly to pick up the difference Why on earth would I ever want to do that ?
I enjoy my MP3s now .
You 're saying I should study how to pick up the difference , so I can get totally fucking annoyed by all but the most perfect sound files ?
Maybe I 'm misunderstanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 192K and a good pair of headphones with good material I think most people could learn pretty quickly to pick up the difference Why on earth would I ever want to do that?
I enjoy my MP3s now.
You're saying I should study how to pick up the difference, so I can get totally fucking annoyed by all but the most perfect sound files?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139048</id>
	<title>will someone come up with a definitive test?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set up clips online, play them using some player.  Have the listener choose which codec they thought it was, a recaptcha for keeping false choices to a minimum.  and have a section where you can select the same clip with each codec back to back.  I would love to see one if someone has a site like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set up clips online , play them using some player .
Have the listener choose which codec they thought it was , a recaptcha for keeping false choices to a minimum .
and have a section where you can select the same clip with each codec back to back .
I would love to see one if someone has a site like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set up clips online, play them using some player.
Have the listener choose which codec they thought it was, a recaptcha for keeping false choices to a minimum.
and have a section where you can select the same clip with each codec back to back.
I would love to see one if someone has a site like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146752</id>
	<title>Terribly Useless Study...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In looking at the study, there were 16 possible outcomes...</p><p>(ie: right or wrong on 4 sets of independent events). If randomly distributed, we would expect a 1/16 chance that one person would get them all right, 1/16 all wrong, 8/16 half right, 3/16 1 right, 3/16 3 right.</p><p>They had 7 participants, 1 got all right, 3 got half right, 3 got 1 right.</p><p>These numbers just aren't very convincing one way or another - we need a lot more test subjects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In looking at the study , there were 16 possible outcomes... ( ie : right or wrong on 4 sets of independent events ) .
If randomly distributed , we would expect a 1/16 chance that one person would get them all right , 1/16 all wrong , 8/16 half right , 3/16 1 right , 3/16 3 right.They had 7 participants , 1 got all right , 3 got half right , 3 got 1 right.These numbers just are n't very convincing one way or another - we need a lot more test subjects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In looking at the study, there were 16 possible outcomes...(ie: right or wrong on 4 sets of independent events).
If randomly distributed, we would expect a 1/16 chance that one person would get them all right, 1/16 all wrong, 8/16 half right, 3/16 1 right, 3/16 3 right.They had 7 participants, 1 got all right, 3 got half right, 3 got 1 right.These numbers just aren't very convincing one way or another - we need a lot more test subjects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147876</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that vinyl has a much broader dynamic range than the digital format used by commercial music CDs. You can get louder louds with vinyl.</p><p>That's why high-end audio equipment has those huge capacitors. They store energy to be ready to punch the speakers at sharp transitions from quiet to loud. And vinyl has the ability for greater variation in volume.</p><p>More-accurate-representation that, digital boy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that vinyl has a much broader dynamic range than the digital format used by commercial music CDs .
You can get louder louds with vinyl.That 's why high-end audio equipment has those huge capacitors .
They store energy to be ready to punch the speakers at sharp transitions from quiet to loud .
And vinyl has the ability for greater variation in volume.More-accurate-representation that , digital boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that vinyl has a much broader dynamic range than the digital format used by commercial music CDs.
You can get louder louds with vinyl.That's why high-end audio equipment has those huge capacitors.
They store energy to be ready to punch the speakers at sharp transitions from quiet to loud.
And vinyl has the ability for greater variation in volume.More-accurate-representation that, digital boy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140824</id>
	<title>"Disturbing"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Very interesting, if slightly disturbing reading!</p></div><p>"The vast majority of people AREN'T die-hard audiophiles!  My GOD, do you realize what this means?!?  Our <i>entire perception of the world has been wrong all along!!!</i>  It's not just a few troglodytes we run into once in a while who are deaf to the point that they can't tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio to a variance of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.0000045Hz!  It's EVERYONE!  Are WE wrong?  Is lossy compression actually good enough?  Oh God.  OH GOD.  I'm freaking out I'm freaking out I'm freaking..."</p><p><i>(Sound of some song nobody cares about, least of all the ranter in question, coming out of disgustingly overpriced and obsessively calibrated sound equipment)</i></p><p>"...aaaaah I'm in my happy place I'm in my happy place I'm..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very interesting , if slightly disturbing reading !
" The vast majority of people ARE N'T die-hard audiophiles !
My GOD , do you realize what this means ? ! ?
Our entire perception of the world has been wrong all along ! ! !
It 's not just a few troglodytes we run into once in a while who are deaf to the point that they ca n't tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio to a variance of .0000045Hz !
It 's EVERYONE !
Are WE wrong ?
Is lossy compression actually good enough ?
Oh God .
OH GOD .
I 'm freaking out I 'm freaking out I 'm freaking... " ( Sound of some song nobody cares about , least of all the ranter in question , coming out of disgustingly overpriced and obsessively calibrated sound equipment ) " ...aaaaah I 'm in my happy place I 'm in my happy place I 'm... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very interesting, if slightly disturbing reading!
"The vast majority of people AREN'T die-hard audiophiles!
My GOD, do you realize what this means?!?
Our entire perception of the world has been wrong all along!!!
It's not just a few troglodytes we run into once in a while who are deaf to the point that they can't tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio to a variance of .0000045Hz!
It's EVERYONE!
Are WE wrong?
Is lossy compression actually good enough?
Oh God.
OH GOD.
I'm freaking out I'm freaking out I'm freaking..."(Sound of some song nobody cares about, least of all the ranter in question, coming out of disgustingly overpriced and obsessively calibrated sound equipment)"...aaaaah I'm in my happy place I'm in my happy place I'm..."
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140410</id>
	<title>Honestly</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1258485780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what to say other than... if you can't tell the difference between a 128kbit MP3 and uncompressed source material, you may have a hearing deficiency (or <i>extremely</i> poor quality equipment).</p><p>I've played audio engineer, designed and built amplifiers and speakers, and tested for phase distortion and coupling.  I'm not saying this as an audiophile (though I appreciate quality sound), but as an astute observer: 128kbit CBR MP3s are <b>appalling</b>.  256VBR are quite good, and 320kbit are indistinguishable from source 95+\% of the time.  These figures vary by compressor; lame is, in my experience, the best across the board.</p><p>An easy test for low bitrate MP3s (you'll score 100\% on a double blind test): Listen to the cymbals and female vocals.  Listen for "Ffffff" or "Thhhhhh" instead of "shhhhh."  Almost like a lisp.</p><p>Listen for compression; the difference between the loudest and quietest audible sounds is significantly diminished, causing the song to sound lifeless and distant (like listening to a live band from behind a door, or over a phone).</p><p>If you can live with it, low bitrate MP3s are great.  But to deny high-ratio lossy compression diminishes signal quality is retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what to say other than... if you ca n't tell the difference between a 128kbit MP3 and uncompressed source material , you may have a hearing deficiency ( or extremely poor quality equipment ) .I 've played audio engineer , designed and built amplifiers and speakers , and tested for phase distortion and coupling .
I 'm not saying this as an audiophile ( though I appreciate quality sound ) , but as an astute observer : 128kbit CBR MP3s are appalling .
256VBR are quite good , and 320kbit are indistinguishable from source 95 + \ % of the time .
These figures vary by compressor ; lame is , in my experience , the best across the board.An easy test for low bitrate MP3s ( you 'll score 100 \ % on a double blind test ) : Listen to the cymbals and female vocals .
Listen for " Ffffff " or " Thhhhhh " instead of " shhhhh .
" Almost like a lisp.Listen for compression ; the difference between the loudest and quietest audible sounds is significantly diminished , causing the song to sound lifeless and distant ( like listening to a live band from behind a door , or over a phone ) .If you can live with it , low bitrate MP3s are great .
But to deny high-ratio lossy compression diminishes signal quality is retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what to say other than... if you can't tell the difference between a 128kbit MP3 and uncompressed source material, you may have a hearing deficiency (or extremely poor quality equipment).I've played audio engineer, designed and built amplifiers and speakers, and tested for phase distortion and coupling.
I'm not saying this as an audiophile (though I appreciate quality sound), but as an astute observer: 128kbit CBR MP3s are appalling.
256VBR are quite good, and 320kbit are indistinguishable from source 95+\% of the time.
These figures vary by compressor; lame is, in my experience, the best across the board.An easy test for low bitrate MP3s (you'll score 100\% on a double blind test): Listen to the cymbals and female vocals.
Listen for "Ffffff" or "Thhhhhh" instead of "shhhhh.
"  Almost like a lisp.Listen for compression; the difference between the loudest and quietest audible sounds is significantly diminished, causing the song to sound lifeless and distant (like listening to a live band from behind a door, or over a phone).If you can live with it, low bitrate MP3s are great.
But to deny high-ratio lossy compression diminishes signal quality is retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146032</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1257100800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Vinyl absolutely cannot "contain" any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least, nothing that was put there intentionally. The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter."<br> <br>
I call bullshit. That is what the "RIAA curve" is for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Vinyl absolutely can not " contain " any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least , nothing that was put there intentionally .
The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter .
" I call bullshit .
That is what the " RIAA curve " is for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Vinyl absolutely cannot "contain" any loud low frequency stereo signal - at least, nothing that was put there intentionally.
The groove would become so shallow the needle would pop out of it and go skidding across the platter.
" 
I call bullshit.
That is what the "RIAA curve" is for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154248</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>strikethree</author>
	<datestamp>1258627980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"nothing I've yet experienced is audibly degraded at 256kbps"</i></p><p>Heh. I double dog dare you to try and compress the song My Name is Mud. It is by a group called Primus. I swear to god, no matter what bitrate I use, it always sounds like crap. I have no idea why it is like that, but the song just refuses to be compressed. You get ungodly artifacts, extra clicks, etc. Try it, you will see what I mean.</p><p>Note that I am not disagreeing with your general assertion, I just wanted to point out that reality does not like being boxed in. heheh.<br>Regards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" nothing I 've yet experienced is audibly degraded at 256kbps " Heh .
I double dog dare you to try and compress the song My Name is Mud .
It is by a group called Primus .
I swear to god , no matter what bitrate I use , it always sounds like crap .
I have no idea why it is like that , but the song just refuses to be compressed .
You get ungodly artifacts , extra clicks , etc .
Try it , you will see what I mean.Note that I am not disagreeing with your general assertion , I just wanted to point out that reality does not like being boxed in .
heheh.Regards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"nothing I've yet experienced is audibly degraded at 256kbps"Heh.
I double dog dare you to try and compress the song My Name is Mud.
It is by a group called Primus.
I swear to god, no matter what bitrate I use, it always sounds like crap.
I have no idea why it is like that, but the song just refuses to be compressed.
You get ungodly artifacts, extra clicks, etc.
Try it, you will see what I mean.Note that I am not disagreeing with your general assertion, I just wanted to point out that reality does not like being boxed in.
heheh.Regards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148470</id>
	<title>Re:Recording Bias</title>
	<author>sl3xd</author>
	<datestamp>1257069180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this to be similar to people who are familiar with the sound of LP's, or tube amps.</p><p>A listener becomes accustomed to the particular artifacts introduced by the technologies in question - ie. the "warmer" (though distorted) sound of a tube amp, or an LP record.  So regardless of the actual fidelity of the recording or reproduction, listeners tend to prefer the distortions they are used to hearing.</p><p>And compressed audio seems to be no different.  Young listeners are to showing a preference for music whose distortions are characteristic of MDCT compression (MP3, AAC, Dolby Digital, etc.)  This shouldn't be a suprise, given young listeners didn't grow up with CD's, LP's or tube amps -- they grew up with MDCT compression, and their ears are used to it.</p><p>AC-3 (Dolby Digital) alone can be found on almost everything that isn't a pure audio recording - Digital TV (at least with North America's ATSC), DVD's, and in movie theatres.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this to be similar to people who are familiar with the sound of LP 's , or tube amps.A listener becomes accustomed to the particular artifacts introduced by the technologies in question - ie .
the " warmer " ( though distorted ) sound of a tube amp , or an LP record .
So regardless of the actual fidelity of the recording or reproduction , listeners tend to prefer the distortions they are used to hearing.And compressed audio seems to be no different .
Young listeners are to showing a preference for music whose distortions are characteristic of MDCT compression ( MP3 , AAC , Dolby Digital , etc .
) This should n't be a suprise , given young listeners did n't grow up with CD 's , LP 's or tube amps -- they grew up with MDCT compression , and their ears are used to it.AC-3 ( Dolby Digital ) alone can be found on almost everything that is n't a pure audio recording - Digital TV ( at least with North America 's ATSC ) , DVD 's , and in movie theatres .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this to be similar to people who are familiar with the sound of LP's, or tube amps.A listener becomes accustomed to the particular artifacts introduced by the technologies in question - ie.
the "warmer" (though distorted) sound of a tube amp, or an LP record.
So regardless of the actual fidelity of the recording or reproduction, listeners tend to prefer the distortions they are used to hearing.And compressed audio seems to be no different.
Young listeners are to showing a preference for music whose distortions are characteristic of MDCT compression (MP3, AAC, Dolby Digital, etc.
)  This shouldn't be a suprise, given young listeners didn't grow up with CD's, LP's or tube amps -- they grew up with MDCT compression, and their ears are used to it.AC-3 (Dolby Digital) alone can be found on almost everything that isn't a pure audio recording - Digital TV (at least with North America's ATSC), DVD's, and in movie theatres.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139136</id>
	<title>Training and bias make a difference...</title>
	<author>absent\_speaker</author>
	<datestamp>1258475220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll bet that some training would make some significant differences.  The person who correctly identified the cymbal differences may have spent some time listening for the differences.  Just as young musicians are given tonal training early on, if you know what to listen for, I imagine the test subjects scores would have improved.

I would also wonder how each subjects personal histories impact their preferences.  I have heard that blind people tend to have more sensitive hearing, perhaps those who mostly listen to MP3s already won't be as sensitive to compression distortion.

Another slashdotted story highlighted that people are growing increasingly fond of the hiss of MP3 noise (see link below). Perhaps subjects have a unconscious bias that makes it difficult assess what is better. It would have been neat if they had run test where both were MP3s or both were lossless.

<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet that some training would make some significant differences .
The person who correctly identified the cymbal differences may have spent some time listening for the differences .
Just as young musicians are given tonal training early on , if you know what to listen for , I imagine the test subjects scores would have improved .
I would also wonder how each subjects personal histories impact their preferences .
I have heard that blind people tend to have more sensitive hearing , perhaps those who mostly listen to MP3s already wo n't be as sensitive to compression distortion .
Another slashdotted story highlighted that people are growing increasingly fond of the hiss of MP3 noise ( see link below ) .
Perhaps subjects have a unconscious bias that makes it difficult assess what is better .
It would have been neat if they had run test where both were MP3s or both were lossless .
http : //news.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/03/11/153205 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet that some training would make some significant differences.
The person who correctly identified the cymbal differences may have spent some time listening for the differences.
Just as young musicians are given tonal training early on, if you know what to listen for, I imagine the test subjects scores would have improved.
I would also wonder how each subjects personal histories impact their preferences.
I have heard that blind people tend to have more sensitive hearing, perhaps those who mostly listen to MP3s already won't be as sensitive to compression distortion.
Another slashdotted story highlighted that people are growing increasingly fond of the hiss of MP3 noise (see link below).
Perhaps subjects have a unconscious bias that makes it difficult assess what is better.
It would have been neat if they had run test where both were MP3s or both were lossless.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/11/153205 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145518</id>
	<title>Re:Training and experience matter</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1257098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd be afraid to google anyone named "Peter Craven"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be afraid to google anyone named " Peter Craven "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be afraid to google anyone named "Peter Craven"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145836</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257100080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"over a thousand bucks for a SINGLE cd player, but they simply are the best )"<br>Ok, what makes the way the read bits so much better? CDs are marvelously simple things so I am interested to know how there magic laser works so much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" over a thousand bucks for a SINGLE cd player , but they simply are the best ) " Ok , what makes the way the read bits so much better ?
CDs are marvelously simple things so I am interested to know how there magic laser works so much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"over a thousand bucks for a SINGLE cd player, but they simply are the best )"Ok, what makes the way the read bits so much better?
CDs are marvelously simple things so I am interested to know how there magic laser works so much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154514</id>
	<title>Disturbing reading</title>
	<author>simplexion</author>
	<datestamp>1258632240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you serious? Interesting... possibly. Disturbing... not even close.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
Interesting... possibly .
Disturbing... not even close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
Interesting... possibly.
Disturbing... not even close.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139330</id>
	<title>apparently we can tell</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1258476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there is a statistically significant preference for MP3, then I would guess people can tell the difference.  I would guess they have become so accustomed to lossy compression that they expect it, and even have grown to like it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is a statistically significant preference for MP3 , then I would guess people can tell the difference .
I would guess they have become so accustomed to lossy compression that they expect it , and even have grown to like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is a statistically significant preference for MP3, then I would guess people can tell the difference.
I would guess they have become so accustomed to lossy compression that they expect it, and even have grown to like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139524</id>
	<title>I can tell the difference</title>
	<author>Bob Cat - NYMPHS</author>
	<datestamp>1258477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Properly mixed CD &gt; tape &gt; vinyl &gt; mp3.</p><p>In other words, no extra noise is better then hiss is better than pops and clicks is better than mind bending compression.</p><p>Please note, I said PROPERLY MIXED CDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Properly mixed CD &gt; tape &gt; vinyl &gt; mp3.In other words , no extra noise is better then hiss is better than pops and clicks is better than mind bending compression.Please note , I said PROPERLY MIXED CDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Properly mixed CD &gt; tape &gt; vinyl &gt; mp3.In other words, no extra noise is better then hiss is better than pops and clicks is better than mind bending compression.Please note, I said PROPERLY MIXED CDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150314</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer "Sad To See the Slashot Go" by Cowboy Neal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer " Sad To See the Slashot Go " by Cowboy Neal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer "Sad To See the Slashot Go" by Cowboy Neal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30151584</id>
	<title>Re:I get headaches from listening</title>
	<author>soleblaze</author>
	<datestamp>1257084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I also tend to get headaches from 128kbps and lower mp3s.  When it's a better encode it tends not to bother me as much.  This is if I'm listening with headphones or on my home stereo.  If I'm in a car or other noisy environment then it doesn't affect me.  Maybe it's all in my head, who knows.

I also have pressure issues with my ears (probably due to ear infections as a kid).  I live in Colorado now and the altitude plus caffeine makes my ears hurt really bad, especially if I put on headphones.  I gave up using headphones for a few years before I figured out that I just had to stop drinking caffeine.  My ears would be ringing when I got into work from the road noise.. now I'm fine with the drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I also tend to get headaches from 128kbps and lower mp3s .
When it 's a better encode it tends not to bother me as much .
This is if I 'm listening with headphones or on my home stereo .
If I 'm in a car or other noisy environment then it does n't affect me .
Maybe it 's all in my head , who knows .
I also have pressure issues with my ears ( probably due to ear infections as a kid ) .
I live in Colorado now and the altitude plus caffeine makes my ears hurt really bad , especially if I put on headphones .
I gave up using headphones for a few years before I figured out that I just had to stop drinking caffeine .
My ears would be ringing when I got into work from the road noise.. now I 'm fine with the drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also tend to get headaches from 128kbps and lower mp3s.
When it's a better encode it tends not to bother me as much.
This is if I'm listening with headphones or on my home stereo.
If I'm in a car or other noisy environment then it doesn't affect me.
Maybe it's all in my head, who knows.
I also have pressure issues with my ears (probably due to ear infections as a kid).
I live in Colorado now and the altitude plus caffeine makes my ears hurt really bad, especially if I put on headphones.
I gave up using headphones for a few years before I figured out that I just had to stop drinking caffeine.
My ears would be ringing when I got into work from the road noise.. now I'm fine with the drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159602</id>
	<title>Re:It's tube amplifiers all over again</title>
	<author>whitelabrat</author>
	<datestamp>1258656420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some of your audiophiles will tell you that tube based amplifiers produce less distortion than transistor based models.</p><p>The truth is that they often produce MORE distortion, only the distortion that they produce is pleasing to the ear, where as the distortion created by transistor based amps tends to be unpleasant to listen to.</p></div><p>This is a generalization that is rather short sighted and can be proven false.  The truth is that BOTH produce distortion.  How much depends on the design and the application.  A lot of tubeheads refuse to incorporate modern tech into their designs which results in higher distortion which is where this stereotype seems to come from.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of your audiophiles will tell you that tube based amplifiers produce less distortion than transistor based models.The truth is that they often produce MORE distortion , only the distortion that they produce is pleasing to the ear , where as the distortion created by transistor based amps tends to be unpleasant to listen to.This is a generalization that is rather short sighted and can be proven false .
The truth is that BOTH produce distortion .
How much depends on the design and the application .
A lot of tubeheads refuse to incorporate modern tech into their designs which results in higher distortion which is where this stereotype seems to come from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of your audiophiles will tell you that tube based amplifiers produce less distortion than transistor based models.The truth is that they often produce MORE distortion, only the distortion that they produce is pleasing to the ear, where as the distortion created by transistor based amps tends to be unpleasant to listen to.This is a generalization that is rather short sighted and can be proven false.
The truth is that BOTH produce distortion.
How much depends on the design and the application.
A lot of tubeheads refuse to incorporate modern tech into their designs which results in higher distortion which is where this stereotype seems to come from.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140136</id>
	<title>This is just garbage</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1258483020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the same incomplete study technique again and again.  Asking people which they like better doesn't mean they like what they've chosen better.  It means that what they'll say when you ask them.</p><p>Presuming that a listener can accurately decide which they like better is the researcher's stupidity.</p><p>Let's go with another example: wine.  A while back I learned to drink wine.  You can ask most people hwich of two wines they'll prefer, and the majority will prefer the less expensive wines -- because they taste better.</p><p>The truth is, obviously, more expensive wines taste better (we're not talking about over-pricing).  Quality wines cost more.  Period.  But they only taste better when you know how to drink them.</p><p>The easy part, you get to decant the wine for twenty minutes for good wines, and two hours for great wines.  They are garbage until then.  If you don't know that, you drink a great wine out of the bottle and it tastes wretched.  It's that simple.</p><p>Of course, the food you eat with the wine makes a huge difference, and vice versa.</p><p>But the greatest difference between cheap and expensive wine would be the effects later -- like the next morning.  Or the effects when you drink it often.  Great wines won't give you any sort of a hang-over (at modest quantities), and heart-burn is incredibly unlikely.  With a greater variety of tastes, you can more often enjoy something different, whereas cheap wines all taste the same.</p><p>Music is the same way.  If you were listening to low-quality music all week, versus high quality music all week, week after week, one remains enjoyable, while the other becomes mundane.   That's not "which one do you like better" that's "which one do you still like after it becomes abusive".</p><p>Similarly, good quality music isn't something I listen to in my convertible sports car doing 120 on the highway in traffic.   Good music is for those quiet relaxing times when a world-class harpist is plucking out a rock-n-roll beat, I'm in the dark, reclined, with a glass of decent wine.</p><p>How about "which one do you remember best" or "which one inspires you most" or "which one produces an emotional effect".  But most people don't know how to consider such options, let alone answer such questions.</p><p>Which one do I like the best?  Football's better than baseball because it's played on a gridiron, and "F" looks better than "B".  That's not a valid opinion.  It is, however, mine -- and not only mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same incomplete study technique again and again .
Asking people which they like better does n't mean they like what they 've chosen better .
It means that what they 'll say when you ask them.Presuming that a listener can accurately decide which they like better is the researcher 's stupidity.Let 's go with another example : wine .
A while back I learned to drink wine .
You can ask most people hwich of two wines they 'll prefer , and the majority will prefer the less expensive wines -- because they taste better.The truth is , obviously , more expensive wines taste better ( we 're not talking about over-pricing ) .
Quality wines cost more .
Period. But they only taste better when you know how to drink them.The easy part , you get to decant the wine for twenty minutes for good wines , and two hours for great wines .
They are garbage until then .
If you do n't know that , you drink a great wine out of the bottle and it tastes wretched .
It 's that simple.Of course , the food you eat with the wine makes a huge difference , and vice versa.But the greatest difference between cheap and expensive wine would be the effects later -- like the next morning .
Or the effects when you drink it often .
Great wines wo n't give you any sort of a hang-over ( at modest quantities ) , and heart-burn is incredibly unlikely .
With a greater variety of tastes , you can more often enjoy something different , whereas cheap wines all taste the same.Music is the same way .
If you were listening to low-quality music all week , versus high quality music all week , week after week , one remains enjoyable , while the other becomes mundane .
That 's not " which one do you like better " that 's " which one do you still like after it becomes abusive " .Similarly , good quality music is n't something I listen to in my convertible sports car doing 120 on the highway in traffic .
Good music is for those quiet relaxing times when a world-class harpist is plucking out a rock-n-roll beat , I 'm in the dark , reclined , with a glass of decent wine.How about " which one do you remember best " or " which one inspires you most " or " which one produces an emotional effect " .
But most people do n't know how to consider such options , let alone answer such questions.Which one do I like the best ?
Football 's better than baseball because it 's played on a gridiron , and " F " looks better than " B " .
That 's not a valid opinion .
It is , however , mine -- and not only mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same incomplete study technique again and again.
Asking people which they like better doesn't mean they like what they've chosen better.
It means that what they'll say when you ask them.Presuming that a listener can accurately decide which they like better is the researcher's stupidity.Let's go with another example: wine.
A while back I learned to drink wine.
You can ask most people hwich of two wines they'll prefer, and the majority will prefer the less expensive wines -- because they taste better.The truth is, obviously, more expensive wines taste better (we're not talking about over-pricing).
Quality wines cost more.
Period.  But they only taste better when you know how to drink them.The easy part, you get to decant the wine for twenty minutes for good wines, and two hours for great wines.
They are garbage until then.
If you don't know that, you drink a great wine out of the bottle and it tastes wretched.
It's that simple.Of course, the food you eat with the wine makes a huge difference, and vice versa.But the greatest difference between cheap and expensive wine would be the effects later -- like the next morning.
Or the effects when you drink it often.
Great wines won't give you any sort of a hang-over (at modest quantities), and heart-burn is incredibly unlikely.
With a greater variety of tastes, you can more often enjoy something different, whereas cheap wines all taste the same.Music is the same way.
If you were listening to low-quality music all week, versus high quality music all week, week after week, one remains enjoyable, while the other becomes mundane.
That's not "which one do you like better" that's "which one do you still like after it becomes abusive".Similarly, good quality music isn't something I listen to in my convertible sports car doing 120 on the highway in traffic.
Good music is for those quiet relaxing times when a world-class harpist is plucking out a rock-n-roll beat, I'm in the dark, reclined, with a glass of decent wine.How about "which one do you remember best" or "which one inspires you most" or "which one produces an emotional effect".
But most people don't know how to consider such options, let alone answer such questions.Which one do I like the best?
Football's better than baseball because it's played on a gridiron, and "F" looks better than "B".
That's not a valid opinion.
It is, however, mine -- and not only mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140216</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>Velimir</author>
	<datestamp>1258483680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're confusing different types of audiophiles, some are truly "guided by their ears" but others, such as myself, prefer to look at only the evidence. I would never buy an expensive cable and would thoroughly test any new equipment in my setup double-blind to determine it's merits. That said, I did an ABX test of lossless vs mp3 and found I could tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless for 2 clips but there was a wide variation. On some I could only tell between 96 kbps and lossless. So check it out, here: <a href="http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_3\_-\_Results\_and\_Discussion.html" title="vel.co.nz" rel="nofollow">http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_3\_-\_Results\_and\_Discussion.html</a> [vel.co.nz]

Your point about re-encoding is perfectly correct, another reason to use lossless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing different types of audiophiles , some are truly " guided by their ears " but others , such as myself , prefer to look at only the evidence .
I would never buy an expensive cable and would thoroughly test any new equipment in my setup double-blind to determine it 's merits .
That said , I did an ABX test of lossless vs mp3 and found I could tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless for 2 clips but there was a wide variation .
On some I could only tell between 96 kbps and lossless .
So check it out , here : http : //vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21 \ _ABX \ _of \ _Lossless \ _versus \ _MP3 \ _- \ _Part \ _3 \ _- \ _Results \ _and \ _Discussion.html [ vel.co.nz ] Your point about re-encoding is perfectly correct , another reason to use lossless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing different types of audiophiles, some are truly "guided by their ears" but others, such as myself, prefer to look at only the evidence.
I would never buy an expensive cable and would thoroughly test any new equipment in my setup double-blind to determine it's merits.
That said, I did an ABX test of lossless vs mp3 and found I could tell the difference between 320 kbps and lossless for 2 clips but there was a wide variation.
On some I could only tell between 96 kbps and lossless.
So check it out, here: http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_3\_-\_Results\_and\_Discussion.html [vel.co.nz]

Your point about re-encoding is perfectly correct, another reason to use lossless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142040</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've been saying this for years - it is not hard to reach a point where an MP3 is indistinguishable from the uncompressed source, "even if you have top notch equipment and well-practiced hearing skills."</i></p><p><i>It is basically scale of bitrate vs odds that the recording will be indistinguishable at that bitrate.</i></p><p>Not indistinguishable. Listen to some of the test cases that LAME uses. Some of them cannot be encoded indistinguishably due to limitations in the format. The trick is to encode them acceptably, which is very subjective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been saying this for years - it is not hard to reach a point where an MP3 is indistinguishable from the uncompressed source , " even if you have top notch equipment and well-practiced hearing skills .
" It is basically scale of bitrate vs odds that the recording will be indistinguishable at that bitrate.Not indistinguishable .
Listen to some of the test cases that LAME uses .
Some of them can not be encoded indistinguishably due to limitations in the format .
The trick is to encode them acceptably , which is very subjective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been saying this for years - it is not hard to reach a point where an MP3 is indistinguishable from the uncompressed source, "even if you have top notch equipment and well-practiced hearing skills.
"It is basically scale of bitrate vs odds that the recording will be indistinguishable at that bitrate.Not indistinguishable.
Listen to some of the test cases that LAME uses.
Some of them cannot be encoded indistinguishably due to limitations in the format.
The trick is to encode them acceptably, which is very subjective.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143452</id>
	<title>HARDWARE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you guys need a proper set of headphones and a high quality sound card. And then and only then can you get the quality you can tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you guys need a proper set of headphones and a high quality sound card .
And then and only then can you get the quality you can tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you guys need a proper set of headphones and a high quality sound card.
And then and only then can you get the quality you can tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139624</id>
	<title>Depends on the bitrate</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1258478760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>High frequencies have a tendency to *roll* at 128k. At higher bitrates, it depends on what was used to compress the album, but it won't be as good as FLAC or analog<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br><br>Digitized music just doesn't have the warmth of an old LP (my opinion)</htmltext>
<tokenext>High frequencies have a tendency to * roll * at 128k .
At higher bitrates , it depends on what was used to compress the album , but it wo n't be as good as FLAC or analog : ) Digitized music just does n't have the warmth of an old LP ( my opinion )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High frequencies have a tendency to *roll* at 128k.
At higher bitrates, it depends on what was used to compress the album, but it won't be as good as FLAC or analog :)Digitized music just doesn't have the warmth of an old LP (my opinion)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139674</id>
	<title>For Archival Purposes</title>
	<author>TheTempest</author>
	<datestamp>1258479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I generally use MP3 (car, iPhone, etc.), but I rip to FLAC for archival purposes.  It's nice to know that in the future I can re-convert the music and start from scratch.</p><p>Also, I like the fact that I can use FLAC track/album gain on my Squeezebox at home but normalize the tracks for output to MP3 for use elsewhere.</p><p>MP3 encoders/decoders have gotten seriously good and if you don't know the songs well it's easy to be fooled.  However, if you DO know the music very well it's often easy to tell the difference.  It's not worse, really, just different and for people with strong auditory memories it can be a little annoying.</p><p>I also listen to a lot of music with significant distortion and MP3 seems to be weak in this area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally use MP3 ( car , iPhone , etc .
) , but I rip to FLAC for archival purposes .
It 's nice to know that in the future I can re-convert the music and start from scratch.Also , I like the fact that I can use FLAC track/album gain on my Squeezebox at home but normalize the tracks for output to MP3 for use elsewhere.MP3 encoders/decoders have gotten seriously good and if you do n't know the songs well it 's easy to be fooled .
However , if you DO know the music very well it 's often easy to tell the difference .
It 's not worse , really , just different and for people with strong auditory memories it can be a little annoying.I also listen to a lot of music with significant distortion and MP3 seems to be weak in this area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally use MP3 (car, iPhone, etc.
), but I rip to FLAC for archival purposes.
It's nice to know that in the future I can re-convert the music and start from scratch.Also, I like the fact that I can use FLAC track/album gain on my Squeezebox at home but normalize the tracks for output to MP3 for use elsewhere.MP3 encoders/decoders have gotten seriously good and if you don't know the songs well it's easy to be fooled.
However, if you DO know the music very well it's often easy to tell the difference.
It's not worse, really, just different and for people with strong auditory memories it can be a little annoying.I also listen to a lot of music with significant distortion and MP3 seems to be weak in this area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141764</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>boristhespider</author>
	<datestamp>1257077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hahahahahahaha

jog on</htmltext>
<tokenext>hahahahahahaha jog on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahahahahahaha

jog on</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142588</id>
	<title>Re:Recording Bias</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1257086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really a static or hiss issue.  Generally, the issue is a high-frequency warble as the compression picks different frequencies to hide the compression noise.  If you listen to a 128kbps MP3 for a song with loud cymbal crashes, it becomes very noticable (and once you hear it, you always will).  Personally, I can't hear this on 192kbps or higher MP3, but it's likely still there in small amounts.
</p><p>Of course, when listening in noisier environments (car, earbuds, etc) the other sounds mask this, at least enough to be unnoticable consciously.  Then the familiarity of the compression takes over and you prefer what you normally hear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really a static or hiss issue .
Generally , the issue is a high-frequency warble as the compression picks different frequencies to hide the compression noise .
If you listen to a 128kbps MP3 for a song with loud cymbal crashes , it becomes very noticable ( and once you hear it , you always will ) .
Personally , I ca n't hear this on 192kbps or higher MP3 , but it 's likely still there in small amounts .
Of course , when listening in noisier environments ( car , earbuds , etc ) the other sounds mask this , at least enough to be unnoticable consciously .
Then the familiarity of the compression takes over and you prefer what you normally hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really a static or hiss issue.
Generally, the issue is a high-frequency warble as the compression picks different frequencies to hide the compression noise.
If you listen to a 128kbps MP3 for a song with loud cymbal crashes, it becomes very noticable (and once you hear it, you always will).
Personally, I can't hear this on 192kbps or higher MP3, but it's likely still there in small amounts.
Of course, when listening in noisier environments (car, earbuds, etc) the other sounds mask this, at least enough to be unnoticable consciously.
Then the familiarity of the compression takes over and you prefer what you normally hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139566</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>Saint Stephen</author>
	<datestamp>1258478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I was going to say it's the cymbals that sound like shit on mp3.  You get used to mp3, but hell, I used to rock out on cassettes too.  cd is always refreshing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I was going to say it 's the cymbals that sound like shit on mp3 .
You get used to mp3 , but hell , I used to rock out on cassettes too .
cd is always refreshing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I was going to say it's the cymbals that sound like shit on mp3.
You get used to mp3, but hell, I used to rock out on cassettes too.
cd is always refreshing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139896</id>
	<title>Recently did a quik-n-dirty myself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Took my Grado studio reverence headpones, hooked it up to my tascam 48k audio interface, listened to a song in 128, 192, 320, and FLAC. 128 of course sounded like crap, 192 sounded like the ones above it for most songs, and I couldnt tell the difference between 320 and FLAC on all the songs I got. 320 definitely saves space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Took my Grado studio reverence headpones , hooked it up to my tascam 48k audio interface , listened to a song in 128 , 192 , 320 , and FLAC .
128 of course sounded like crap , 192 sounded like the ones above it for most songs , and I couldnt tell the difference between 320 and FLAC on all the songs I got .
320 definitely saves space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took my Grado studio reverence headpones, hooked it up to my tascam 48k audio interface, listened to a song in 128, 192, 320, and FLAC.
128 of course sounded like crap, 192 sounded like the ones above it for most songs, and I couldnt tell the difference between 320 and FLAC on all the songs I got.
320 definitely saves space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140496</id>
	<title>It's about dynamics</title>
	<author>GodBlessTexas</author>
	<datestamp>1258486680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In today's modern, tightly packed, overly compressed mastering of commercial audio, you'll have a very hard time telling the difference between MP3 and FLAC.  But throw in a song with lots of dynamics, and you'll definitely hear a difference, though which one may be more pleasing is a matter of personal preference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In today 's modern , tightly packed , overly compressed mastering of commercial audio , you 'll have a very hard time telling the difference between MP3 and FLAC .
But throw in a song with lots of dynamics , and you 'll definitely hear a difference , though which one may be more pleasing is a matter of personal preference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In today's modern, tightly packed, overly compressed mastering of commercial audio, you'll have a very hard time telling the difference between MP3 and FLAC.
But throw in a song with lots of dynamics, and you'll definitely hear a difference, though which one may be more pleasing is a matter of personal preference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141444</id>
	<title>They tested with headphones?</title>
	<author>clickclickdrone</author>
	<datestamp>1257073860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even up market HiFi headphones don't convey the music they way half decent speakers do. Do the tests again with speakers and come back to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even up market HiFi headphones do n't convey the music they way half decent speakers do .
Do the tests again with speakers and come back to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even up market HiFi headphones don't convey the music they way half decent speakers do.
Do the tests again with speakers and come back to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140588</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>atheistmonk</author>
	<datestamp>1258487760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we don't block it we'll be blinded... Isn't that a good thing? How else do we blind test!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we do n't block it we 'll be blinded... Is n't that a good thing ?
How else do we blind test !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we don't block it we'll be blinded... Isn't that a good thing?
How else do we blind test!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30168418</id>
	<title>Compression Comparisons</title>
	<author>bilbal</author>
	<datestamp>1258655460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this review is the parameter on page 3.

"......... the subject(s) simply had to say which version sounded best."

If you don't like the character of the original recording, certainly an unfaithful rendition may be  found to be preferable;
BUT, if - faithfulness to the sonic character of the original is your aspiration - "whether you like it, or not"
is really a poor criterion for judging which compression scheme is "best".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this review is the parameter on page 3 .
" ......... the subject ( s ) simply had to say which version sounded best .
" If you do n't like the character of the original recording , certainly an unfaithful rendition may be found to be preferable ; BUT , if - faithfulness to the sonic character of the original is your aspiration - " whether you like it , or not " is really a poor criterion for judging which compression scheme is " best " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this review is the parameter on page 3.
"......... the subject(s) simply had to say which version sounded best.
"

If you don't like the character of the original recording, certainly an unfaithful rendition may be  found to be preferable;
BUT, if - faithfulness to the sonic character of the original is your aspiration - "whether you like it, or not"
is really a poor criterion for judging which compression scheme is "best".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141536</id>
	<title>EmPeeThree</title>
	<author>ConallB</author>
	<datestamp>1257075240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh MP3, the Vinyl of the digital audio world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh MP3 , the Vinyl of the digital audio world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh MP3, the Vinyl of the digital audio world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139382</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>loshwomp</author>
	<datestamp>1258476780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" but that doesn't mean the rest of us should stop caring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people do n't know the difference between " your " and " you 're " but that does n't mean the rest of us should stop caring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" but that doesn't mean the rest of us should stop caring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139750</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1258479780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs (stylus, cartridge coils, tonearm, not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string (almost independent of bit rate) is deluding themselves.</p></div><p>Actually, what those people are referring to as better is the fact that frequencies lower that 20Hz and higher than 44Khz are still in that particular recording. I would love to have the noise floor of CD while keeping the frequency range of records... There have been plenty of studies that show the human body still detects and interprets infrasound and ultrasound, even if the human ear can not discern or recognize a particular pitch or tone to those frequency ranges. Specifically, studies have shown that there is a MUCH higher emotional reaction to music containing those frequency ranges. In particular, the experimental concert Infrasonic, did a pretty good job of proving this fact. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/08/1062901994082.html?oneclick=true" title="smh.com.au">Link to article on study</a> [smh.com.au]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs ( stylus , cartridge coils , tonearm , not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself ) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string ( almost independent of bit rate ) is deluding themselves.Actually , what those people are referring to as better is the fact that frequencies lower that 20Hz and higher than 44Khz are still in that particular recording .
I would love to have the noise floor of CD while keeping the frequency range of records... There have been plenty of studies that show the human body still detects and interprets infrasound and ultrasound , even if the human ear can not discern or recognize a particular pitch or tone to those frequency ranges .
Specifically , studies have shown that there is a MUCH higher emotional reaction to music containing those frequency ranges .
In particular , the experimental concert Infrasonic , did a pretty good job of proving this fact .
Link to article on study [ smh.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs (stylus, cartridge coils, tonearm, not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string (almost independent of bit rate) is deluding themselves.Actually, what those people are referring to as better is the fact that frequencies lower that 20Hz and higher than 44Khz are still in that particular recording.
I would love to have the noise floor of CD while keeping the frequency range of records... There have been plenty of studies that show the human body still detects and interprets infrasound and ultrasound, even if the human ear can not discern or recognize a particular pitch or tone to those frequency ranges.
Specifically, studies have shown that there is a MUCH higher emotional reaction to music containing those frequency ranges.
In particular, the experimental concert Infrasonic, did a pretty good job of proving this fact.
Link to article on study [smh.com.au]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139334</id>
	<title>I can tell the difference</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1258476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does depend on the recording, though.  It's in the small details, like the sound of the singer breathing.  You can also hear the frequency extremes better, but you need the right speakers for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does depend on the recording , though .
It 's in the small details , like the sound of the singer breathing .
You can also hear the frequency extremes better , but you need the right speakers for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does depend on the recording, though.
It's in the small details, like the sound of the singer breathing.
You can also hear the frequency extremes better, but you need the right speakers for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141478</id>
	<title>Latest codecs do better</title>
	<author>deiksac</author>
	<datestamp>1257074340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Few years ago it was rather easy to distinguish even a 320 kbps mp3 from the original, the space present in the wav version collapsed in the mp3 (done with some olde lame incarnation - 3.90 or something). Thus I doubted the quality of mp3s. Recently one guy pointed to me that newer versions really improved so I gave it a bit time to testing. Using LAme 3.98 and beta 4, listeningwise it is rather hard to detect any difference but is possible to notice subtler detail in quieter parts of songs but I doubt that it would prove significant enough as to show for majority of subjects in blind listening tests. I also ran the sampes thru analysing sw (arta) and the mp3 exhibits a tad more distortion (mere 2-3 dB higher threshold). Must say I was pretty amazed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Few years ago it was rather easy to distinguish even a 320 kbps mp3 from the original , the space present in the wav version collapsed in the mp3 ( done with some olde lame incarnation - 3.90 or something ) .
Thus I doubted the quality of mp3s .
Recently one guy pointed to me that newer versions really improved so I gave it a bit time to testing .
Using LAme 3.98 and beta 4 , listeningwise it is rather hard to detect any difference but is possible to notice subtler detail in quieter parts of songs but I doubt that it would prove significant enough as to show for majority of subjects in blind listening tests .
I also ran the sampes thru analysing sw ( arta ) and the mp3 exhibits a tad more distortion ( mere 2-3 dB higher threshold ) .
Must say I was pretty amazed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few years ago it was rather easy to distinguish even a 320 kbps mp3 from the original, the space present in the wav version collapsed in the mp3 (done with some olde lame incarnation - 3.90 or something).
Thus I doubted the quality of mp3s.
Recently one guy pointed to me that newer versions really improved so I gave it a bit time to testing.
Using LAme 3.98 and beta 4, listeningwise it is rather hard to detect any difference but is possible to notice subtler detail in quieter parts of songs but I doubt that it would prove significant enough as to show for majority of subjects in blind listening tests.
I also ran the sampes thru analysing sw (arta) and the mp3 exhibits a tad more distortion (mere 2-3 dB higher threshold).
Must say I was pretty amazed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148952</id>
	<title>Swish swish swish swish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all I hear if an MP3 is low-bitrate. 128 makes pretty much every song sound swishy to me. It's even worse if you use that old windows media format where it had a pre-echo issue.</p><p>192 starts to be acceptable but some complex sections of songs you can still hear the strangeness.</p><p>I hear it mostly in cymbals and the subtleties of certain instruments.</p><p>I admit, most of the time I fully enjoy whatever MP3 I'm given and I'd not typically bother with super-expensive audio gear.</p><p>I also have to admit I hear swishy cymbals, missing bits, etc.</p><p>Incidentally, this 320kbps version of Hairspray Queen by Nirvana sounds pretty much perfect to me. I see no need for FLAC unless it's archival.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all I hear if an MP3 is low-bitrate .
128 makes pretty much every song sound swishy to me .
It 's even worse if you use that old windows media format where it had a pre-echo issue.192 starts to be acceptable but some complex sections of songs you can still hear the strangeness.I hear it mostly in cymbals and the subtleties of certain instruments.I admit , most of the time I fully enjoy whatever MP3 I 'm given and I 'd not typically bother with super-expensive audio gear.I also have to admit I hear swishy cymbals , missing bits , etc.Incidentally , this 320kbps version of Hairspray Queen by Nirvana sounds pretty much perfect to me .
I see no need for FLAC unless it 's archival .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all I hear if an MP3 is low-bitrate.
128 makes pretty much every song sound swishy to me.
It's even worse if you use that old windows media format where it had a pre-echo issue.192 starts to be acceptable but some complex sections of songs you can still hear the strangeness.I hear it mostly in cymbals and the subtleties of certain instruments.I admit, most of the time I fully enjoy whatever MP3 I'm given and I'd not typically bother with super-expensive audio gear.I also have to admit I hear swishy cymbals, missing bits, etc.Incidentally, this 320kbps version of Hairspray Queen by Nirvana sounds pretty much perfect to me.
I see no need for FLAC unless it's archival.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144424</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>Eater</author>
	<datestamp>1257094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree with your premises, but you are conflating two unrelated phenomena that have the same name -- 1) the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic\_compression" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">dynamic range compression</a> [wikipedia.org] that audio engineers do in the studio (and in live arenas), which minimizes volume changes in the sound; and 2) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio\_compression\_(data)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">data compression</a> [wikipedia.org], which MP3 encoders do and which affects file size but not dynamic range.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you ca n't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again I agree with your premises , but you are conflating two unrelated phenomena that have the same name -- 1 ) the dynamic range compression [ wikipedia.org ] that audio engineers do in the studio ( and in live arenas ) , which minimizes volume changes in the sound ; and 2 ) data compression [ wikipedia.org ] , which MP3 encoders do and which affects file size but not dynamic range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again

I agree with your premises, but you are conflating two unrelated phenomena that have the same name -- 1) the dynamic range compression [wikipedia.org] that audio engineers do in the studio (and in live arenas), which minimizes volume changes in the sound; and 2) data compression [wikipedia.org], which MP3 encoders do and which affects file size but not dynamic range.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139050</id>
	<title>Old news.</title>
	<author>Akir</author>
	<datestamp>1258474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do I seriously need to look into the past articles to prove how old this news is? Seriously folks; this isn't exactly rocket science here - this is all stuff everyone knows about by now. Hey, do I even need to point to the link to the story about how people actually prefer the sound of MP3 because of the encoding artifacts, much like how people preferred records after CD's came out because of the noise/repressed frequencies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I seriously need to look into the past articles to prove how old this news is ?
Seriously folks ; this is n't exactly rocket science here - this is all stuff everyone knows about by now .
Hey , do I even need to point to the link to the story about how people actually prefer the sound of MP3 because of the encoding artifacts , much like how people preferred records after CD 's came out because of the noise/repressed frequencies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I seriously need to look into the past articles to prove how old this news is?
Seriously folks; this isn't exactly rocket science here - this is all stuff everyone knows about by now.
Hey, do I even need to point to the link to the story about how people actually prefer the sound of MP3 because of the encoding artifacts, much like how people preferred records after CD's came out because of the noise/repressed frequencies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139496</id>
	<title>I can clearly hear the artifacts</title>
	<author>Newer Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1258477680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can clearly hear the artifacts  on every 128 kbps MP3. Try encoding "Baba O'Riley" on Who's next and listen when Daltrey sings: "Don't Cry...it's only teenage wasteland"  At 128 kbps, the artifacts are SO bad that it sounds like his mouth is fillled with marbles! 160 kbps is quite a bit better, as is 192 and the artifact is gone at 256 kbps encoding. Generally speaking, 256 kbps is the MINIMUM that I use with MP3. 320 kbps is even better...and more and more of my library is FLAC and WAV.

Another thing is that many MP3 streamers use extreme audio processing (compression, limiting, etc) and the encoder is designed to run with unprocesssed music. This causes even more encoding errors.

Generally speaking OGG and AAC+ are the best (standard AAC at bit rates over 96 kbps). 64  kbps AAC+, 96/128  kbps Ogg and  160 kbps MP3 are roughly the same quality wise....at least to my (educated) ears.

We should also be discussing something else-the 'dumbing down' of our hearing from all this perceptual coded stuff....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can clearly hear the artifacts on every 128 kbps MP3 .
Try encoding " Baba O'Riley " on Who 's next and listen when Daltrey sings : " Do n't Cry...it 's only teenage wasteland " At 128 kbps , the artifacts are SO bad that it sounds like his mouth is fillled with marbles !
160 kbps is quite a bit better , as is 192 and the artifact is gone at 256 kbps encoding .
Generally speaking , 256 kbps is the MINIMUM that I use with MP3 .
320 kbps is even better...and more and more of my library is FLAC and WAV .
Another thing is that many MP3 streamers use extreme audio processing ( compression , limiting , etc ) and the encoder is designed to run with unprocesssed music .
This causes even more encoding errors .
Generally speaking OGG and AAC + are the best ( standard AAC at bit rates over 96 kbps ) .
64 kbps AAC + , 96/128 kbps Ogg and 160 kbps MP3 are roughly the same quality wise....at least to my ( educated ) ears .
We should also be discussing something else-the 'dumbing down ' of our hearing from all this perceptual coded stuff... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can clearly hear the artifacts  on every 128 kbps MP3.
Try encoding "Baba O'Riley" on Who's next and listen when Daltrey sings: "Don't Cry...it's only teenage wasteland"  At 128 kbps, the artifacts are SO bad that it sounds like his mouth is fillled with marbles!
160 kbps is quite a bit better, as is 192 and the artifact is gone at 256 kbps encoding.
Generally speaking, 256 kbps is the MINIMUM that I use with MP3.
320 kbps is even better...and more and more of my library is FLAC and WAV.
Another thing is that many MP3 streamers use extreme audio processing (compression, limiting, etc) and the encoder is designed to run with unprocesssed music.
This causes even more encoding errors.
Generally speaking OGG and AAC+ are the best (standard AAC at bit rates over 96 kbps).
64  kbps AAC+, 96/128  kbps Ogg and  160 kbps MP3 are roughly the same quality wise....at least to my (educated) ears.
We should also be discussing something else-the 'dumbing down' of our hearing from all this perceptual coded stuff....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139076</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>MouseR</author>
	<datestamp>1258474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No really. That site is an eye sore, even with addblock and flashblock. I opted not to read at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No really .
That site is an eye sore , even with addblock and flashblock .
I opted not to read at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No really.
That site is an eye sore, even with addblock and flashblock.
I opted not to read at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Scaba</author>
	<datestamp>1258476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other things audiophiles don't take into account:
</p><ol> <li>they can't tell the difference between lossless and lossy at a reasonable compression, either</li><li>bragging about buying $5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brain</li><li>the average listener can tell the difference between having a conversation with a real person about music versus listening to an insecure nerd trying to one-up everyone.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other things audiophiles do n't take into account : they ca n't tell the difference between lossless and lossy at a reasonable compression , eitherbragging about buying $ 5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brainthe average listener can tell the difference between having a conversation with a real person about music versus listening to an insecure nerd trying to one-up everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other things audiophiles don't take into account:
 they can't tell the difference between lossless and lossy at a reasonable compression, eitherbragging about buying $5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brainthe average listener can tell the difference between having a conversation with a real person about music versus listening to an insecure nerd trying to one-up everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140358</id>
	<title>Troll'n the audiophiles</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1258485120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will this "story" make 500 posts?  Will the philes still be replying in 2010?  Tune in next week!</p><p>The "quick and dirty test" bit is a really nice touch.  You can <i>feel</i> the hate.</p><p>We salute thee and thy mighty trolling skillz!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this " story " make 500 posts ?
Will the philes still be replying in 2010 ?
Tune in next week ! The " quick and dirty test " bit is a really nice touch .
You can feel the hate.We salute thee and thy mighty trolling skillz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this "story" make 500 posts?
Will the philes still be replying in 2010?
Tune in next week!The "quick and dirty test" bit is a really nice touch.
You can feel the hate.We salute thee and thy mighty trolling skillz!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143628</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; <i>There are so many problems with the study that it is completely useless.</i> <br> <br>
Agreed. For all the reasons you state.
<br> <br>
&gt; <i>For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers. Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again, no matter by what method.</i>
<br> <br>
 Unfortunately, you're mixing up two totally different processes, both of which are unfortunately called "compression".  Dynamic Range compression is what audio engineers do to the program audio to increase it's perceived loudness.  Bit-rate compression is done (usually much later) to reduce the file size. <b>They are totally different concepts.</b>
<br> <br>
Dynamic range compression does make it easier for the codec do deal with the program material.  But this is not specific to digital - dynamic range compression has long been used to help the audio survive the tortured journey through a less than ideal signal chain.  See the history of AM radio, for instance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There are so many problems with the study that it is completely useless .
Agreed. For all the reasons you state .
&gt; For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers .
Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you ca n't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again , no matter by what method .
Unfortunately , you 're mixing up two totally different processes , both of which are unfortunately called " compression " .
Dynamic Range compression is what audio engineers do to the program audio to increase it 's perceived loudness .
Bit-rate compression is done ( usually much later ) to reduce the file size .
They are totally different concepts .
Dynamic range compression does make it easier for the codec do deal with the program material .
But this is not specific to digital - dynamic range compression has long been used to help the audio survive the tortured journey through a less than ideal signal chain .
See the history of AM radio , for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There are so many problems with the study that it is completely useless.
Agreed. For all the reasons you state.
&gt; For years now recordings have been increasingly compressed by the engineers.
Most popular works produced in this decade are already so compressed that you can't tell much difference between the original and a recording of it having been compressed yet again, no matter by what method.
Unfortunately, you're mixing up two totally different processes, both of which are unfortunately called "compression".
Dynamic Range compression is what audio engineers do to the program audio to increase it's perceived loudness.
Bit-rate compression is done (usually much later) to reduce the file size.
They are totally different concepts.
Dynamic range compression does make it easier for the codec do deal with the program material.
But this is not specific to digital - dynamic range compression has long been used to help the audio survive the tortured journey through a less than ideal signal chain.
See the history of AM radio, for instance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139814</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258480320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the reason people don't sit down and listen to albums anymore is because people don't buy full albums anymore. They buy/download individual songs. Personally, whenever I have a full album of something, I'll still listen through it all.</p><p>So I really don't think people not listening to full albums today is because of frequencies that you can't hear. Sorry, but it makes far less sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the reason people do n't sit down and listen to albums anymore is because people do n't buy full albums anymore .
They buy/download individual songs .
Personally , whenever I have a full album of something , I 'll still listen through it all.So I really do n't think people not listening to full albums today is because of frequencies that you ca n't hear .
Sorry , but it makes far less sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the reason people don't sit down and listen to albums anymore is because people don't buy full albums anymore.
They buy/download individual songs.
Personally, whenever I have a full album of something, I'll still listen through it all.So I really don't think people not listening to full albums today is because of frequencies that you can't hear.
Sorry, but it makes far less sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139150</id>
	<title>Use them together</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1258475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, MP3s sound better than FLAC, but if you used *both*, you'd get even better sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , MP3s sound better than FLAC , but if you used * both * , you 'd get even better sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, MP3s sound better than FLAC, but if you used *both*, you'd get even better sound.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139596</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1258478460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There will always be people who claim the LP is superior to a CD.  It just sounds "real" they tell you.  Personally, I'm fond of my mp3s.  They just sound "real".  You kids with your "lossless" formats just don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will always be people who claim the LP is superior to a CD .
It just sounds " real " they tell you .
Personally , I 'm fond of my mp3s .
They just sound " real " .
You kids with your " lossless " formats just do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will always be people who claim the LP is superior to a CD.
It just sounds "real" they tell you.
Personally, I'm fond of my mp3s.
They just sound "real".
You kids with your "lossless" formats just don't get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140834</id>
	<title>Re:Misses part of the point</title>
	<author>sunspot42</author>
	<datestamp>1257108300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I don't know why people don't understand this.  Sure, AAC and MP3 are the hot lossy formats *today*, but will they be so hot 10 years from now?  Rip to FLAC and you never need to rip again - just transcode to whatever format you like.  And FLAC takes up about half the space of raw WAV files, supports metadata (so you can tag it to your heart's desire), and can even be streamed.</p><p>There is one benefit I haven't seen anyone point out yet when it comes to the lossy formats.  By chucking away some of the supposedly inaudible signal, they do lessen the amount of work your amp and speakers have to perform.  So <i>in theory</i> the remaining, more audible signal should be getting reproduced more accurately than it would have been otherwise.  I wonder if someday, as these psychoacoustic models continue to grow in sophistication, it'll become commonplace to feed all audio thru some kind of model before it's amplified and delivered to your speakers.  In theory you might be able to generate a signal that will be reproduced with greater <i>apparent</i> fidelity to the original performance than you would achieve from an unprocessed signal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I do n't know why people do n't understand this .
Sure , AAC and MP3 are the hot lossy formats * today * , but will they be so hot 10 years from now ?
Rip to FLAC and you never need to rip again - just transcode to whatever format you like .
And FLAC takes up about half the space of raw WAV files , supports metadata ( so you can tag it to your heart 's desire ) , and can even be streamed.There is one benefit I have n't seen anyone point out yet when it comes to the lossy formats .
By chucking away some of the supposedly inaudible signal , they do lessen the amount of work your amp and speakers have to perform .
So in theory the remaining , more audible signal should be getting reproduced more accurately than it would have been otherwise .
I wonder if someday , as these psychoacoustic models continue to grow in sophistication , it 'll become commonplace to feed all audio thru some kind of model before it 's amplified and delivered to your speakers .
In theory you might be able to generate a signal that will be reproduced with greater apparent fidelity to the original performance than you would achieve from an unprocessed signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I don't know why people don't understand this.
Sure, AAC and MP3 are the hot lossy formats *today*, but will they be so hot 10 years from now?
Rip to FLAC and you never need to rip again - just transcode to whatever format you like.
And FLAC takes up about half the space of raw WAV files, supports metadata (so you can tag it to your heart's desire), and can even be streamed.There is one benefit I haven't seen anyone point out yet when it comes to the lossy formats.
By chucking away some of the supposedly inaudible signal, they do lessen the amount of work your amp and speakers have to perform.
So in theory the remaining, more audible signal should be getting reproduced more accurately than it would have been otherwise.
I wonder if someday, as these psychoacoustic models continue to grow in sophistication, it'll become commonplace to feed all audio thru some kind of model before it's amplified and delivered to your speakers.
In theory you might be able to generate a signal that will be reproduced with greater apparent fidelity to the original performance than you would achieve from an unprocessed signal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154932</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258639140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's gold plated so it doesn't corrode</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's gold plated so it does n't corrode</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's gold plated so it doesn't corrode</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142358</id>
	<title>of course not, but...</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1257084840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 99\% of cases, of course not. But as the article points out, if you bought a CD, it's worth keeping a lossless copy around so that at some point in the future, if mp3 goes the way of the dodo, or even if you want to re-encode at a different bitrate, you won't have to suffer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation\_loss" title="wikipedia.org">generation loss</a> [wikipedia.org] or re-purchase the items in the new format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 99 \ % of cases , of course not .
But as the article points out , if you bought a CD , it 's worth keeping a lossless copy around so that at some point in the future , if mp3 goes the way of the dodo , or even if you want to re-encode at a different bitrate , you wo n't have to suffer generation loss [ wikipedia.org ] or re-purchase the items in the new format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 99\% of cases, of course not.
But as the article points out, if you bought a CD, it's worth keeping a lossless copy around so that at some point in the future, if mp3 goes the way of the dodo, or even if you want to re-encode at a different bitrate, you won't have to suffer generation loss [wikipedia.org] or re-purchase the items in the new format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042</id>
	<title>Kids prefer that cold, dry, digital sizzle.</title>
	<author>conner\_bw</author>
	<datestamp>1258474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech\_and\_web/personal\_tech/article5847674.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">Cut and paste job follows</a> [timesonline.co.uk]:</p><p><i>The theory has been developed by Jonathan Berger, Professor of Music at Stanford University, California. For the past eight years his students have taken part in an experiment in which they listen to songs in a variety of different forms, including MP3s. "I found not only that MP3s were not thought of as low quality, but over time there was a rise in preference for MP3s,"</i></p><p><i>He compared the phenomenon to the continued preference of some people for music from vinyl records heard through a gramophone. "Some people prefer that needle noise -- the noise of little dust particles that create noise in the grooves," he said. "I think there's a sense of warmth and comfort in that."</i></p><p>All of this to say that the article isn't really testing anything. I mean, they ask seven people (five  of which work for the website) to guess which tracks are what format, blindly. They admit something along the lines that Massive Attack fooled them more than other styles (Probably has more to do with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness\_war" title="wikipedia.org">the Loudness war</a> [wikipedia.org] than anything else) And they conclude that 192 KBPS is "good enough".</p><p>Yes, and so were casettes back in day? They sounded good too. So what exactly did they test here? The ability to enjoy music? Our tolerance for advertising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cut and paste job follows [ timesonline.co.uk ] : The theory has been developed by Jonathan Berger , Professor of Music at Stanford University , California .
For the past eight years his students have taken part in an experiment in which they listen to songs in a variety of different forms , including MP3s .
" I found not only that MP3s were not thought of as low quality , but over time there was a rise in preference for MP3s , " He compared the phenomenon to the continued preference of some people for music from vinyl records heard through a gramophone .
" Some people prefer that needle noise -- the noise of little dust particles that create noise in the grooves , " he said .
" I think there 's a sense of warmth and comfort in that .
" All of this to say that the article is n't really testing anything .
I mean , they ask seven people ( five of which work for the website ) to guess which tracks are what format , blindly .
They admit something along the lines that Massive Attack fooled them more than other styles ( Probably has more to do with the Loudness war [ wikipedia.org ] than anything else ) And they conclude that 192 KBPS is " good enough " .Yes , and so were casettes back in day ?
They sounded good too .
So what exactly did they test here ?
The ability to enjoy music ?
Our tolerance for advertising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cut and paste job follows [timesonline.co.uk]:The theory has been developed by Jonathan Berger, Professor of Music at Stanford University, California.
For the past eight years his students have taken part in an experiment in which they listen to songs in a variety of different forms, including MP3s.
"I found not only that MP3s were not thought of as low quality, but over time there was a rise in preference for MP3s,"He compared the phenomenon to the continued preference of some people for music from vinyl records heard through a gramophone.
"Some people prefer that needle noise -- the noise of little dust particles that create noise in the grooves," he said.
"I think there's a sense of warmth and comfort in that.
"All of this to say that the article isn't really testing anything.
I mean, they ask seven people (five  of which work for the website) to guess which tracks are what format, blindly.
They admit something along the lines that Massive Attack fooled them more than other styles (Probably has more to do with the Loudness war [wikipedia.org] than anything else) And they conclude that 192 KBPS is "good enough".Yes, and so were casettes back in day?
They sounded good too.
So what exactly did they test here?
The ability to enjoy music?
Our tolerance for advertising?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147912</id>
	<title>Re:Ya this was a horrible test</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257066360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better test would be triple blind: a musician behind a screen, two identical high end reproductive systems behind two other screens, and ask the testee which one sounds better.</p><p>I'm betting the yougsters would say the MP3 sounds better than the live musician.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better test would be triple blind : a musician behind a screen , two identical high end reproductive systems behind two other screens , and ask the testee which one sounds better.I 'm betting the yougsters would say the MP3 sounds better than the live musician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better test would be triple blind: a musician behind a screen, two identical high end reproductive systems behind two other screens, and ask the testee which one sounds better.I'm betting the yougsters would say the MP3 sounds better than the live musician.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141970</id>
	<title>It matters a lot for Classical music</title>
	<author>dassen</author>
	<datestamp>1257080640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It matters a lot for Classical music, less so for most types of pop music. Obviously it depends also on bitrate and recording quality. But I have never yet heard a compressed music file with classical music/ Opera which matches FLAC. In this day and age with the size and price of disk space there is absolutely no reason to use lossy compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters a lot for Classical music , less so for most types of pop music .
Obviously it depends also on bitrate and recording quality .
But I have never yet heard a compressed music file with classical music/ Opera which matches FLAC .
In this day and age with the size and price of disk space there is absolutely no reason to use lossy compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters a lot for Classical music, less so for most types of pop music.
Obviously it depends also on bitrate and recording quality.
But I have never yet heard a compressed music file with classical music/ Opera which matches FLAC.
In this day and age with the size and price of disk space there is absolutely no reason to use lossy compression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139806</id>
	<title>If you're listening to the codec</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1258480320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're listening to the codec then you're doing it wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're listening to the codec then you 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're listening to the codec then you're doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390</id>
	<title>Ya this was a horrible test</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1258476840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem is the simple A/B and asking which people like better. Well that is fine if you are doing something like testing two compression formats to see which has a sound people prefer. That is not fine if the question can people tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music. For that you need an ABX test. X is a reference uncompressed sample, A and B are randomized such that one is uncompressed, one is not. People are then asked to identify the one that is the same as X. A test like that lets you tell if people can hear a difference, regardless of if they like it or not.</p><p>Also there is another angle to why people might choose to use uncompressed music and that is if there is any additional processing (like equalization) planned for later. Psychoacoustic compression schemes can have problems when processed later. Reason being that they do rely on things like masking, in that because X is happening, we can't hear Y. However when the balance of the sound is altered, well then that isn't necessarily the case anymore.</p><p>How important is that? Probably not very in a lot of cases. However how important is storage space? Last I checked 1TB was under $100. Storage is cheap. There's not really a need to milk every last bit out of a file. FLAC'd discs are in the realm of 300MB for a full CD. Big deal. I'm got space to spare, so why not go lossless?</p><p>What it really comes down to is what is "good enough" really depends on the situation. Depends on the music (some kinds cause more trouble for encoders), the listener, the environment, storage constraints and so on. I mean 64k is good enough to recognize the music. A 64k AAC or WMA is fine, FM radio quality maybe, and even a 64k MP3 is listenable. Is there distortion over what was on the CD? Sure, but maybe it is good enough in some situations (like say you need to be able to transmit stereo audio on a single DS-0 channel).</p><p>I really don't like these tests that try to give the one magic rate is that is good enough for all situations. Especially when they use bad testing methodology.</p><p>Personally, I'm a fan of lossless compression because then there's just not any additional errors. I've got the space so why not eliminate potential problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem is the simple A/B and asking which people like better .
Well that is fine if you are doing something like testing two compression formats to see which has a sound people prefer .
That is not fine if the question can people tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music .
For that you need an ABX test .
X is a reference uncompressed sample , A and B are randomized such that one is uncompressed , one is not .
People are then asked to identify the one that is the same as X. A test like that lets you tell if people can hear a difference , regardless of if they like it or not.Also there is another angle to why people might choose to use uncompressed music and that is if there is any additional processing ( like equalization ) planned for later .
Psychoacoustic compression schemes can have problems when processed later .
Reason being that they do rely on things like masking , in that because X is happening , we ca n't hear Y. However when the balance of the sound is altered , well then that is n't necessarily the case anymore.How important is that ?
Probably not very in a lot of cases .
However how important is storage space ?
Last I checked 1TB was under $ 100 .
Storage is cheap .
There 's not really a need to milk every last bit out of a file .
FLAC 'd discs are in the realm of 300MB for a full CD .
Big deal .
I 'm got space to spare , so why not go lossless ? What it really comes down to is what is " good enough " really depends on the situation .
Depends on the music ( some kinds cause more trouble for encoders ) , the listener , the environment , storage constraints and so on .
I mean 64k is good enough to recognize the music .
A 64k AAC or WMA is fine , FM radio quality maybe , and even a 64k MP3 is listenable .
Is there distortion over what was on the CD ?
Sure , but maybe it is good enough in some situations ( like say you need to be able to transmit stereo audio on a single DS-0 channel ) .I really do n't like these tests that try to give the one magic rate is that is good enough for all situations .
Especially when they use bad testing methodology.Personally , I 'm a fan of lossless compression because then there 's just not any additional errors .
I 've got the space so why not eliminate potential problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem is the simple A/B and asking which people like better.
Well that is fine if you are doing something like testing two compression formats to see which has a sound people prefer.
That is not fine if the question can people tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed music.
For that you need an ABX test.
X is a reference uncompressed sample, A and B are randomized such that one is uncompressed, one is not.
People are then asked to identify the one that is the same as X. A test like that lets you tell if people can hear a difference, regardless of if they like it or not.Also there is another angle to why people might choose to use uncompressed music and that is if there is any additional processing (like equalization) planned for later.
Psychoacoustic compression schemes can have problems when processed later.
Reason being that they do rely on things like masking, in that because X is happening, we can't hear Y. However when the balance of the sound is altered, well then that isn't necessarily the case anymore.How important is that?
Probably not very in a lot of cases.
However how important is storage space?
Last I checked 1TB was under $100.
Storage is cheap.
There's not really a need to milk every last bit out of a file.
FLAC'd discs are in the realm of 300MB for a full CD.
Big deal.
I'm got space to spare, so why not go lossless?What it really comes down to is what is "good enough" really depends on the situation.
Depends on the music (some kinds cause more trouble for encoders), the listener, the environment, storage constraints and so on.
I mean 64k is good enough to recognize the music.
A 64k AAC or WMA is fine, FM radio quality maybe, and even a 64k MP3 is listenable.
Is there distortion over what was on the CD?
Sure, but maybe it is good enough in some situations (like say you need to be able to transmit stereo audio on a single DS-0 channel).I really don't like these tests that try to give the one magic rate is that is good enough for all situations.
Especially when they use bad testing methodology.Personally, I'm a fan of lossless compression because then there's just not any additional errors.
I've got the space so why not eliminate potential problems?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140290</id>
	<title>The biggest "loss" is somewhere else</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1258484520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well first of all PCM, the base of most "lossless" codecs is lossy by itself. It only approximates the original waveform. (just like tracking a mechanically recorded one with a stylus does)</p><p>However the bigger loss is before it even becomes a waveform. You have an instument which radiates different sounds into different directions, yet you can only record it with a limited number of microphones. That signal from the microphones is then mixed down to a small number of channels. Those channels are reproduced by loudspeakers in a random enviroment before reaching your ears.</p><p>Then some reproduction equipment plays the sound at the wrong volume. Just increasing or decreasing the amplitude of a signal can greatly change it's sound. So it's vital that you use the same volume as it was originally. Unfortunately records don't have callibrated tones on them to tell you how loud they should be played.</p><p>MP3 and OGG are economical Alternatives to PCM for when the bitrate is limited. Just compare any of those PCM-based "lossless" systems to MP3 at a bitrate of 64 kbit. If you have the bandwidth, just use PCM with the maximum parameters your hardware can do. (Or parameters you can easily convert to the ones for your final product)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well first of all PCM , the base of most " lossless " codecs is lossy by itself .
It only approximates the original waveform .
( just like tracking a mechanically recorded one with a stylus does ) However the bigger loss is before it even becomes a waveform .
You have an instument which radiates different sounds into different directions , yet you can only record it with a limited number of microphones .
That signal from the microphones is then mixed down to a small number of channels .
Those channels are reproduced by loudspeakers in a random enviroment before reaching your ears.Then some reproduction equipment plays the sound at the wrong volume .
Just increasing or decreasing the amplitude of a signal can greatly change it 's sound .
So it 's vital that you use the same volume as it was originally .
Unfortunately records do n't have callibrated tones on them to tell you how loud they should be played.MP3 and OGG are economical Alternatives to PCM for when the bitrate is limited .
Just compare any of those PCM-based " lossless " systems to MP3 at a bitrate of 64 kbit .
If you have the bandwidth , just use PCM with the maximum parameters your hardware can do .
( Or parameters you can easily convert to the ones for your final product )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well first of all PCM, the base of most "lossless" codecs is lossy by itself.
It only approximates the original waveform.
(just like tracking a mechanically recorded one with a stylus does)However the bigger loss is before it even becomes a waveform.
You have an instument which radiates different sounds into different directions, yet you can only record it with a limited number of microphones.
That signal from the microphones is then mixed down to a small number of channels.
Those channels are reproduced by loudspeakers in a random enviroment before reaching your ears.Then some reproduction equipment plays the sound at the wrong volume.
Just increasing or decreasing the amplitude of a signal can greatly change it's sound.
So it's vital that you use the same volume as it was originally.
Unfortunately records don't have callibrated tones on them to tell you how loud they should be played.MP3 and OGG are economical Alternatives to PCM for when the bitrate is limited.
Just compare any of those PCM-based "lossless" systems to MP3 at a bitrate of 64 kbit.
If you have the bandwidth, just use PCM with the maximum parameters your hardware can do.
(Or parameters you can easily convert to the ones for your final product)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139192</id>
	<title>nope.</title>
	<author>pat sajak</author>
	<datestamp>1258475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't. I just deleted a crap load of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.flac files after downloading the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp3 versions and not being able to tell the difference while listening through some pretty decent headphones. I'd rather have a few more free gigabytes.
256 and 320 bitrate are great, 128 is another story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't .
I just deleted a crap load of .flac files after downloading the .mp3 versions and not being able to tell the difference while listening through some pretty decent headphones .
I 'd rather have a few more free gigabytes .
256 and 320 bitrate are great , 128 is another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't.
I just deleted a crap load of .flac files after downloading the .mp3 versions and not being able to tell the difference while listening through some pretty decent headphones.
I'd rather have a few more free gigabytes.
256 and 320 bitrate are great, 128 is another story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1258487220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all people who purchase Monster Cables, Gold Plated Cables, and all that crap are utterly clueless.  The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick, in other words it is worthless.</p><p>A thing or two about cables...</p><p>For carrying the output of the main amplifier to the speakers, ANY cable that can handle the power load without overheating and starting your house on fire will work fine.  We are talking high voltage and current levels.</p><p>Signal cables...  We are talking millivolts here.  They need to be well shielded and well built that is about it and the mechanical connection needs to fit securely.</p><p>In ANY audio system there are two critical components: A. The device that produces the music from the source ( tape, phonograph, tuner, cd player ). and B. the device that takes the amplified electronic signal and turns it back into sound waves and those are the speakers, everything else is BS when it comes to all those flowery terms that audiophiles use.</p><p>The Pre-Amplifier ( often sold as a seperate component).  If it produces and undistorted wave form from it's minimum to it's maximum power output ( measured in millivolts ) with a flat frequency response in it's specified spectrum  and performs the correct equalization according to the RIAA specifications ( especially critical for vinyl ) then it will introduce nothing to alter the sound.</p><p>The Amplifier.  If it produces and undistorted wave form from it's minimum to it's maximum power ( measured in watts ) output with a flat frequency response in it's specified spectrum rating then it will introduce nothing to alter the sound.</p><p>The Speakers.  If the speakers produce the same wave form, without distortio then it will not alter the sound.</p><p>The biggest problem with almost EVERY music system being built today is the fact that the power supply is inadequate and that the components are quite often under rated for the power that the amplifier is specified to produce. If an amplifier is designed to put out 100 watts of audio power then it's power supply should be able to provide at least 1000 watts to the final amplification stage to handle transients, especially in the lower frequency ranges and the components of the amplifier should be able to handle ALL of that power, and the amplifier will never clip and distort your signal.</p><p>So the moral of the story is.... Spend the biggest portion of your audio budget on 1. The Speakers and 2. The sound source component, if you listen to vinyl, spend it on the best turntable and cartridge you can afford, if you are a CD person I suggest Creek Audio ( over a thousand bucks for a SINGLE cd player, but they simply are the best ).  As far as I can tell, no company is manufacturing tape recorders other then Nagra which are mono and are used pretty much exclusively in the film industry.  You can still find good reel-to-reel and some professional cassette equipment on ebay and there are companies still manufacturing tape for at least reel-to-reel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all people who purchase Monster Cables , Gold Plated Cables , and all that crap are utterly clueless .
The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick , in other words it is worthless.A thing or two about cables...For carrying the output of the main amplifier to the speakers , ANY cable that can handle the power load without overheating and starting your house on fire will work fine .
We are talking high voltage and current levels.Signal cables... We are talking millivolts here .
They need to be well shielded and well built that is about it and the mechanical connection needs to fit securely.In ANY audio system there are two critical components : A. The device that produces the music from the source ( tape , phonograph , tuner , cd player ) .
and B. the device that takes the amplified electronic signal and turns it back into sound waves and those are the speakers , everything else is BS when it comes to all those flowery terms that audiophiles use.The Pre-Amplifier ( often sold as a seperate component ) .
If it produces and undistorted wave form from it 's minimum to it 's maximum power output ( measured in millivolts ) with a flat frequency response in it 's specified spectrum and performs the correct equalization according to the RIAA specifications ( especially critical for vinyl ) then it will introduce nothing to alter the sound.The Amplifier .
If it produces and undistorted wave form from it 's minimum to it 's maximum power ( measured in watts ) output with a flat frequency response in it 's specified spectrum rating then it will introduce nothing to alter the sound.The Speakers .
If the speakers produce the same wave form , without distortio then it will not alter the sound.The biggest problem with almost EVERY music system being built today is the fact that the power supply is inadequate and that the components are quite often under rated for the power that the amplifier is specified to produce .
If an amplifier is designed to put out 100 watts of audio power then it 's power supply should be able to provide at least 1000 watts to the final amplification stage to handle transients , especially in the lower frequency ranges and the components of the amplifier should be able to handle ALL of that power , and the amplifier will never clip and distort your signal.So the moral of the story is.... Spend the biggest portion of your audio budget on 1 .
The Speakers and 2 .
The sound source component , if you listen to vinyl , spend it on the best turntable and cartridge you can afford , if you are a CD person I suggest Creek Audio ( over a thousand bucks for a SINGLE cd player , but they simply are the best ) .
As far as I can tell , no company is manufacturing tape recorders other then Nagra which are mono and are used pretty much exclusively in the film industry .
You can still find good reel-to-reel and some professional cassette equipment on ebay and there are companies still manufacturing tape for at least reel-to-reel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all people who purchase Monster Cables, Gold Plated Cables, and all that crap are utterly clueless.
The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick, in other words it is worthless.A thing or two about cables...For carrying the output of the main amplifier to the speakers, ANY cable that can handle the power load without overheating and starting your house on fire will work fine.
We are talking high voltage and current levels.Signal cables...  We are talking millivolts here.
They need to be well shielded and well built that is about it and the mechanical connection needs to fit securely.In ANY audio system there are two critical components: A. The device that produces the music from the source ( tape, phonograph, tuner, cd player ).
and B. the device that takes the amplified electronic signal and turns it back into sound waves and those are the speakers, everything else is BS when it comes to all those flowery terms that audiophiles use.The Pre-Amplifier ( often sold as a seperate component).
If it produces and undistorted wave form from it's minimum to it's maximum power output ( measured in millivolts ) with a flat frequency response in it's specified spectrum  and performs the correct equalization according to the RIAA specifications ( especially critical for vinyl ) then it will introduce nothing to alter the sound.The Amplifier.
If it produces and undistorted wave form from it's minimum to it's maximum power ( measured in watts ) output with a flat frequency response in it's specified spectrum rating then it will introduce nothing to alter the sound.The Speakers.
If the speakers produce the same wave form, without distortio then it will not alter the sound.The biggest problem with almost EVERY music system being built today is the fact that the power supply is inadequate and that the components are quite often under rated for the power that the amplifier is specified to produce.
If an amplifier is designed to put out 100 watts of audio power then it's power supply should be able to provide at least 1000 watts to the final amplification stage to handle transients, especially in the lower frequency ranges and the components of the amplifier should be able to handle ALL of that power, and the amplifier will never clip and distort your signal.So the moral of the story is.... Spend the biggest portion of your audio budget on 1.
The Speakers and 2.
The sound source component, if you listen to vinyl, spend it on the best turntable and cartridge you can afford, if you are a CD person I suggest Creek Audio ( over a thousand bucks for a SINGLE cd player, but they simply are the best ).
As far as I can tell, no company is manufacturing tape recorders other then Nagra which are mono and are used pretty much exclusively in the film industry.
You can still find good reel-to-reel and some professional cassette equipment on ebay and there are companies still manufacturing tape for at least reel-to-reel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141502</id>
	<title>Re:This is no surprise</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257074760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.</p></div></blockquote><p>Most listeners have known for decades that audiophiles are only interested in listening to the stereo, not the music.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners can not discern excellent from mediocre music.Most listeners have known for decades that audiophiles are only interested in listening to the stereo , not the music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.Most listeners have known for decades that audiophiles are only interested in listening to the stereo, not the music.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30152764</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1257094080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your point about CDs not being able to accurately reproduce a 15 khz tone is moot. I don't know of any instruments which can play a note roughly 5 octaves above middle C. The harmonics on the top string of a violin are the only sound I can think of which might be close to that high, and they tend to sound "unnatural" to our ears anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point about CDs not being able to accurately reproduce a 15 khz tone is moot .
I do n't know of any instruments which can play a note roughly 5 octaves above middle C. The harmonics on the top string of a violin are the only sound I can think of which might be close to that high , and they tend to sound " unnatural " to our ears anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point about CDs not being able to accurately reproduce a 15 khz tone is moot.
I don't know of any instruments which can play a note roughly 5 octaves above middle C. The harmonics on the top string of a violin are the only sound I can think of which might be close to that high, and they tend to sound "unnatural" to our ears anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140078</id>
	<title>Re:Recording Bias</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258482600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the time when I've had a slight hiss with anything it's due to noisy connections or a bad amplifier, not usually mp3 artifacts. mp3 artifacts usually manifest as muddiness in my experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the time when I 've had a slight hiss with anything it 's due to noisy connections or a bad amplifier , not usually mp3 artifacts .
mp3 artifacts usually manifest as muddiness in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the time when I've had a slight hiss with anything it's due to noisy connections or a bad amplifier, not usually mp3 artifacts.
mp3 artifacts usually manifest as muddiness in my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148048</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Erasure sounds just fine at 192"</p><p>That's strange, I find Erasure sounds like crap in <i>any</i> format</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Erasure sounds just fine at 192 " That 's strange , I find Erasure sounds like crap in any format</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Erasure sounds just fine at 192"That's strange, I find Erasure sounds like crap in any format</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139212</id>
	<title>Audio Engineer says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ridiculous... if ignorance is bliss, its no wonder mp3 listeners are happy with their chosen format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ridiculous... if ignorance is bliss , its no wonder mp3 listeners are happy with their chosen format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ridiculous... if ignorance is bliss, its no wonder mp3 listeners are happy with their chosen format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154572</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258633380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"..contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear."</p><p>You state in opposition "Vinyl<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cannot "contain" any loud frequency stereo signal"</p><p>The OP didn't mention "loud" and goes so far as to say you can't hear the very high/low frequency data.</p><p>You and I both know that vinyl low frequency data is "encoded" and "decoded" (I can't think of better words) using the RIAA curve. You and I also know that MP3 has the option to completely cut a lot of the LF data.</p><p>Vinyl cutters know that to have a lot of low end you need to leave a lot of room and so house records will come with maybe 12 minutes of audio on each side. They've known this for a long time, it's not as if CD or cassette enabled house to the extent you are saying.</p><p>I agree with you on some points, particularly double blind testing. Interesting that you talk about cymbals though. 44.1KHz audio will turn a cycle of signals at or above 10KHz into 4.41 samples or less. Turning clean sine wave cycles into jagged approximations of sine waves, graph it out for yourself.</p><p>To me those errors are objectively more objectionable to the errors reproduced on vinyl. You should be able to spot samples at 44.1KHz versus 96KHz and above if it's HF content using ABX. Note that I am not saying that the vinyl process will reproduce the waves perfectly, but I think it's a better approximation than the jagged curve at 44.1KHz digital.</p><p>Also there's an art in mastering and cutting a vinyl, the barriers to entry are higher than CD releases. That said, I love a well produced CD but these are few and far between. Well produced vinyls, for clubs, are easier to come by and that's where my bias comes from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ..contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
" You state in opposition " Vinyl ... can not " contain " any loud frequency stereo signal " The OP did n't mention " loud " and goes so far as to say you ca n't hear the very high/low frequency data.You and I both know that vinyl low frequency data is " encoded " and " decoded " ( I ca n't think of better words ) using the RIAA curve .
You and I also know that MP3 has the option to completely cut a lot of the LF data.Vinyl cutters know that to have a lot of low end you need to leave a lot of room and so house records will come with maybe 12 minutes of audio on each side .
They 've known this for a long time , it 's not as if CD or cassette enabled house to the extent you are saying.I agree with you on some points , particularly double blind testing .
Interesting that you talk about cymbals though .
44.1KHz audio will turn a cycle of signals at or above 10KHz into 4.41 samples or less .
Turning clean sine wave cycles into jagged approximations of sine waves , graph it out for yourself.To me those errors are objectively more objectionable to the errors reproduced on vinyl .
You should be able to spot samples at 44.1KHz versus 96KHz and above if it 's HF content using ABX .
Note that I am not saying that the vinyl process will reproduce the waves perfectly , but I think it 's a better approximation than the jagged curve at 44.1KHz digital.Also there 's an art in mastering and cutting a vinyl , the barriers to entry are higher than CD releases .
That said , I love a well produced CD but these are few and far between .
Well produced vinyls , for clubs , are easier to come by and that 's where my bias comes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
"You state in opposition "Vinyl ... cannot "contain" any loud frequency stereo signal"The OP didn't mention "loud" and goes so far as to say you can't hear the very high/low frequency data.You and I both know that vinyl low frequency data is "encoded" and "decoded" (I can't think of better words) using the RIAA curve.
You and I also know that MP3 has the option to completely cut a lot of the LF data.Vinyl cutters know that to have a lot of low end you need to leave a lot of room and so house records will come with maybe 12 minutes of audio on each side.
They've known this for a long time, it's not as if CD or cassette enabled house to the extent you are saying.I agree with you on some points, particularly double blind testing.
Interesting that you talk about cymbals though.
44.1KHz audio will turn a cycle of signals at or above 10KHz into 4.41 samples or less.
Turning clean sine wave cycles into jagged approximations of sine waves, graph it out for yourself.To me those errors are objectively more objectionable to the errors reproduced on vinyl.
You should be able to spot samples at 44.1KHz versus 96KHz and above if it's HF content using ABX.
Note that I am not saying that the vinyl process will reproduce the waves perfectly, but I think it's a better approximation than the jagged curve at 44.1KHz digital.Also there's an art in mastering and cutting a vinyl, the barriers to entry are higher than CD releases.
That said, I love a well produced CD but these are few and far between.
Well produced vinyls, for clubs, are easier to come by and that's where my bias comes from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139526</id>
	<title>Re:It does depend on the recording</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1258477920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Death or speed metal in anything other than FLAC or 256+kbps MP3s is unlistenable (more so than usual). The hihat hits become a wash and the cymbals sound like shit. 128kbps is fine for classical or pop.</p><p>When I'm in my car I listen to mp3s with "mp3 boost" compression and normalization, as I don't like adjusting the volume (try listening to Epitaph by King Crimson in the car, there is too much dynamic range). When I'm sitting in front of my computer I listen to mp3s or FLAC hooked up to an e-mu 0404 and alesis mk2 monitors. So all together my sound system costs ~$500, I have a good signal path, good digital converters and have no need for "audiophile gear". And yes I've done ABA sound comparisons and I can tell the difference, but then again I can hear CRT monitors and the "mosquito noise" sounds.</p><p>I want to get a record player soon, not because it has magical properties over digital, but because records are often mastered for their audience and not compressed to unbearable levels like current CDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Death or speed metal in anything other than FLAC or 256 + kbps MP3s is unlistenable ( more so than usual ) .
The hihat hits become a wash and the cymbals sound like shit .
128kbps is fine for classical or pop.When I 'm in my car I listen to mp3s with " mp3 boost " compression and normalization , as I do n't like adjusting the volume ( try listening to Epitaph by King Crimson in the car , there is too much dynamic range ) .
When I 'm sitting in front of my computer I listen to mp3s or FLAC hooked up to an e-mu 0404 and alesis mk2 monitors .
So all together my sound system costs ~ $ 500 , I have a good signal path , good digital converters and have no need for " audiophile gear " .
And yes I 've done ABA sound comparisons and I can tell the difference , but then again I can hear CRT monitors and the " mosquito noise " sounds.I want to get a record player soon , not because it has magical properties over digital , but because records are often mastered for their audience and not compressed to unbearable levels like current CDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Death or speed metal in anything other than FLAC or 256+kbps MP3s is unlistenable (more so than usual).
The hihat hits become a wash and the cymbals sound like shit.
128kbps is fine for classical or pop.When I'm in my car I listen to mp3s with "mp3 boost" compression and normalization, as I don't like adjusting the volume (try listening to Epitaph by King Crimson in the car, there is too much dynamic range).
When I'm sitting in front of my computer I listen to mp3s or FLAC hooked up to an e-mu 0404 and alesis mk2 monitors.
So all together my sound system costs ~$500, I have a good signal path, good digital converters and have no need for "audiophile gear".
And yes I've done ABA sound comparisons and I can tell the difference, but then again I can hear CRT monitors and the "mosquito noise" sounds.I want to get a record player soon, not because it has magical properties over digital, but because records are often mastered for their audience and not compressed to unbearable levels like current CDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146306</id>
	<title>then 'majority' of people are deaf.</title>
	<author>tisch</author>
	<datestamp>1257101880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i wonder how large the sample size was, or if they were using half-decent speakers through a half-decent amp. you don't need expensive stuff to hear the difference.
<br> <br>
it's so obviously different that it's comparable to listening to someone play an electric piano vs a grand piano.
<br>
if you think they sound the same, turn up your hearing aid and wait for the bus with grandma. while you're at it, try not to walk off the end of the earth since the ground looks flat.
<br> <br>
a more valid topic would have been 'listening for a difference between<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogg and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp3'</htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder how large the sample size was , or if they were using half-decent speakers through a half-decent amp .
you do n't need expensive stuff to hear the difference .
it 's so obviously different that it 's comparable to listening to someone play an electric piano vs a grand piano .
if you think they sound the same , turn up your hearing aid and wait for the bus with grandma .
while you 're at it , try not to walk off the end of the earth since the ground looks flat .
a more valid topic would have been 'listening for a difference between .ogg and .mp3'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder how large the sample size was, or if they were using half-decent speakers through a half-decent amp.
you don't need expensive stuff to hear the difference.
it's so obviously different that it's comparable to listening to someone play an electric piano vs a grand piano.
if you think they sound the same, turn up your hearing aid and wait for the bus with grandma.
while you're at it, try not to walk off the end of the earth since the ground looks flat.
a more valid topic would have been 'listening for a difference between .ogg and .mp3'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147722</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143406</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1257090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.</p></div><p>

Forty years ago people used to sit down and listen to albums.  <b>Albums</b>!  The reason why we don't do it anymore is NOT because of a lack of time or high quality new music-- we have both those things.  It's because the music doesn't engage us anymore.  It simply doesn't contain the data to make us forget that we're listening to a recording.</p></div><p>More BS, singles sold quite well 40 years ago.</p><p>I would have thought a vinyl fan such as yourself would have been familiar with the popularity of the 45 rpm single. Especially since it has better fidelity than a 33 rpm albums you seem to love to much. Yes I know they came in higher speeds, 45 and 78; but the 33 was still the most common.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners can not discern excellent from mediocre music .
Forty years ago people used to sit down and listen to albums .
Albums ! The reason why we do n't do it anymore is NOT because of a lack of time or high quality new music-- we have both those things .
It 's because the music does n't engage us anymore .
It simply does n't contain the data to make us forget that we 're listening to a recording.More BS , singles sold quite well 40 years ago.I would have thought a vinyl fan such as yourself would have been familiar with the popularity of the 45 rpm single .
Especially since it has better fidelity than a 33 rpm albums you seem to love to much .
Yes I know they came in higher speeds , 45 and 78 ; but the 33 was still the most common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.
Forty years ago people used to sit down and listen to albums.
Albums!  The reason why we don't do it anymore is NOT because of a lack of time or high quality new music-- we have both those things.
It's because the music doesn't engage us anymore.
It simply doesn't contain the data to make us forget that we're listening to a recording.More BS, singles sold quite well 40 years ago.I would have thought a vinyl fan such as yourself would have been familiar with the popularity of the 45 rpm single.
Especially since it has better fidelity than a 33 rpm albums you seem to love to much.
Yes I know they came in higher speeds, 45 and 78; but the 33 was still the most common.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139676</id>
	<title>Re:Training and experience matter</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1258479240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd almost agree, but to hear the difference clearly at lower bit rates with a portable music player requires really good in-ear headphones--and most of the really good models start at around US$120 and go <b>WAY</b> up from there (go take a look at how much you pay for a "reference" quality in-ear headphone like the Sennheiser IE8 or Shure SE530--they cost as much as the current 32 GB iPod touch from a discount online store).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd almost agree , but to hear the difference clearly at lower bit rates with a portable music player requires really good in-ear headphones--and most of the really good models start at around US $ 120 and go WAY up from there ( go take a look at how much you pay for a " reference " quality in-ear headphone like the Sennheiser IE8 or Shure SE530--they cost as much as the current 32 GB iPod touch from a discount online store ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd almost agree, but to hear the difference clearly at lower bit rates with a portable music player requires really good in-ear headphones--and most of the really good models start at around US$120 and go WAY up from there (go take a look at how much you pay for a "reference" quality in-ear headphone like the Sennheiser IE8 or Shure SE530--they cost as much as the current 32 GB iPod touch from a discount online store).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30165224</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Not logged in] Just wanted to tell you how cool it is to learn this. It made slogging through all the comments featuring dog-whistle nerd sarcasm worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Not logged in ] Just wanted to tell you how cool it is to learn this .
It made slogging through all the comments featuring dog-whistle nerd sarcasm worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Not logged in] Just wanted to tell you how cool it is to learn this.
It made slogging through all the comments featuring dog-whistle nerd sarcasm worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145996</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1257100620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a lot of the people who are into MP3's don't have $20k worth of CDs, but they do have even more than that of music obtained from dubiously legal sources.  Even the ones who didn't pirate outright may have purchased it from places like allofmp3, even though said places fail the smell test right off of the bat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a lot of the people who are into MP3 's do n't have $ 20k worth of CDs , but they do have even more than that of music obtained from dubiously legal sources .
Even the ones who did n't pirate outright may have purchased it from places like allofmp3 , even though said places fail the smell test right off of the bat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a lot of the people who are into MP3's don't have $20k worth of CDs, but they do have even more than that of music obtained from dubiously legal sources.
Even the ones who didn't pirate outright may have purchased it from places like allofmp3, even though said places fail the smell test right off of the bat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214</id>
	<title>Misses part of the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A good part of the reason that people use FLAC <i>et al</i> is NOT to listen to, but to avoid re-ripping CDs or transcoding when switching lossy formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good part of the reason that people use FLAC et al is NOT to listen to , but to avoid re-ripping CDs or transcoding when switching lossy formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good part of the reason that people use FLAC et al is NOT to listen to, but to avoid re-ripping CDs or transcoding when switching lossy formats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147086</id>
	<title>Re:Amateur rocket scientists...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PE is about being able to faithfully represent the actual original wave form.  It is only tangentially related to the goals of audio compression, which is to faithfully reproduce the audio so it can be heard by the human ear with minimum loss of *perceived* quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PE is about being able to faithfully represent the actual original wave form .
It is only tangentially related to the goals of audio compression , which is to faithfully reproduce the audio so it can be heard by the human ear with minimum loss of * perceived * quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PE is about being able to faithfully represent the actual original wave form.
It is only tangentially related to the goals of audio compression, which is to faithfully reproduce the audio so it can be heard by the human ear with minimum loss of *perceived* quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139794</id>
	<title>Not for normal listening</title>
	<author>Dr. Sp0ng</author>
	<datestamp>1258480140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I can't tell much of a difference when listening to music normally if the mp3 is any higher than 128k, but I've found that it really makes a difference if I'm slowing a song down using a program like <a href="http://www.seventhstring.com/xscribe/overview.html" title="seventhstring.com">Transcribe</a> [seventhstring.com] to try to figure out a fast guitar line or something. Even at 50\% speed, lossy compression really loses a lot of detail and makes it hard to hear details. It's the audio equivalent of zooming in on a JPEG.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell much of a difference when listening to music normally if the mp3 is any higher than 128k , but I 've found that it really makes a difference if I 'm slowing a song down using a program like Transcribe [ seventhstring.com ] to try to figure out a fast guitar line or something .
Even at 50 \ % speed , lossy compression really loses a lot of detail and makes it hard to hear details .
It 's the audio equivalent of zooming in on a JPEG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I can't tell much of a difference when listening to music normally if the mp3 is any higher than 128k, but I've found that it really makes a difference if I'm slowing a song down using a program like Transcribe [seventhstring.com] to try to figure out a fast guitar line or something.
Even at 50\% speed, lossy compression really loses a lot of detail and makes it hard to hear details.
It's the audio equivalent of zooming in on a JPEG.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139178</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258475460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take it or leave it, but don't encourage people to:<br>1) Use up their bandwidth<br>2) Block all their advertising</p><p>That's just rude. Terrible netiquette, IMO.</p><p>If Slashdot wants to run a story about this, they can wait until a better news source carries it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take it or leave it , but do n't encourage people to : 1 ) Use up their bandwidth2 ) Block all their advertisingThat 's just rude .
Terrible netiquette , IMO.If Slashdot wants to run a story about this , they can wait until a better news source carries it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take it or leave it, but don't encourage people to:1) Use up their bandwidth2) Block all their advertisingThat's just rude.
Terrible netiquette, IMO.If Slashdot wants to run a story about this, they can wait until a better news source carries it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147630</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Storage capacity will always be limited. I relatively recently bought a new several hundred GB hard drive to replace my old 4 GB one; it's almost full again. I didn't replace all my stuff with lossless stuff, I just got more stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Storage capacity will always be limited .
I relatively recently bought a new several hundred GB hard drive to replace my old 4 GB one ; it 's almost full again .
I did n't replace all my stuff with lossless stuff , I just got more stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Storage capacity will always be limited.
I relatively recently bought a new several hundred GB hard drive to replace my old 4 GB one; it's almost full again.
I didn't replace all my stuff with lossless stuff, I just got more stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148304</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's funny (and I can tell by your comment you realise this) is that digital doesn't lack on the low frequencies, but on the upper frequencies. They compensate for the lack of treble by removing some of the bass frequencies.</p><p>The high notes on CD aren't accurate at all. There are only three samples per crest in a CD recording of a 15 kHz tone, and there's no way to diffrentiate between a square wave, a sine wave, or a sawtooth wave with only three samples. You may not be able to hear those &gt; 18 kHz tones, but you can hear the difference between different waveforms at 13 kHz, and that difference just isn't there in a CD because there aren't enough samples. That's the "color" people talk about that LPs have and CDs lack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny ( and I can tell by your comment you realise this ) is that digital does n't lack on the low frequencies , but on the upper frequencies .
They compensate for the lack of treble by removing some of the bass frequencies.The high notes on CD are n't accurate at all .
There are only three samples per crest in a CD recording of a 15 kHz tone , and there 's no way to diffrentiate between a square wave , a sine wave , or a sawtooth wave with only three samples .
You may not be able to hear those &gt; 18 kHz tones , but you can hear the difference between different waveforms at 13 kHz , and that difference just is n't there in a CD because there are n't enough samples .
That 's the " color " people talk about that LPs have and CDs lack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny (and I can tell by your comment you realise this) is that digital doesn't lack on the low frequencies, but on the upper frequencies.
They compensate for the lack of treble by removing some of the bass frequencies.The high notes on CD aren't accurate at all.
There are only three samples per crest in a CD recording of a 15 kHz tone, and there's no way to diffrentiate between a square wave, a sine wave, or a sawtooth wave with only three samples.
You may not be able to hear those &gt; 18 kHz tones, but you can hear the difference between different waveforms at 13 kHz, and that difference just isn't there in a CD because there aren't enough samples.
That's the "color" people talk about that LPs have and CDs lack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146080</id>
	<title>Re:Amateur rocket scientists...</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1257100980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's. The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo. If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original. ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So you're saying 30 seconds of complete silence encoded at 128kbps must necessarily be distinguishable from 30 seconds of complete silence at 176kbps?<br>
<br>
Clearly there must be some relation between the complexity of the music and the number of bits necessary to encode it in such a way that is indistinguishable from the original to even a trained listener.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to the question is quite simple , and has been known since the 1980 's .
The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo .
If you 're encoding below that , it ca n't possibly be indistinguishable from the original .
ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again .
So you 're saying 30 seconds of complete silence encoded at 128kbps must necessarily be distinguishable from 30 seconds of complete silence at 176kbps ?
Clearly there must be some relation between the complexity of the music and the number of bits necessary to encode it in such a way that is indistinguishable from the original to even a trained listener .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's.
The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo.
If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original.
ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.
So you're saying 30 seconds of complete silence encoded at 128kbps must necessarily be distinguishable from 30 seconds of complete silence at 176kbps?
Clearly there must be some relation between the complexity of the music and the number of bits necessary to encode it in such a way that is indistinguishable from the original to even a trained listener.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139882</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258480980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saving bits is only part of it, and still a relevant part imo  (Ratio depending on where you get your music, and disk space still sucks on portable devices -- I'd rather keep some space free especially if its on a device that can also record)</p><p>The other big reason is cpu, which directly translates into battery life of portable devices.</p><p>Besides that there is still availability. If I send someone an mp3, they can play it on pretty much any computer out of the box in the last 10 years. Or any portable music player. Or most cellphones.</p><p>If I send them a FLAC, unless they're already hip to lossless stuff, very few environments will let them play it without additional effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saving bits is only part of it , and still a relevant part imo ( Ratio depending on where you get your music , and disk space still sucks on portable devices -- I 'd rather keep some space free especially if its on a device that can also record ) The other big reason is cpu , which directly translates into battery life of portable devices.Besides that there is still availability .
If I send someone an mp3 , they can play it on pretty much any computer out of the box in the last 10 years .
Or any portable music player .
Or most cellphones.If I send them a FLAC , unless they 're already hip to lossless stuff , very few environments will let them play it without additional effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saving bits is only part of it, and still a relevant part imo  (Ratio depending on where you get your music, and disk space still sucks on portable devices -- I'd rather keep some space free especially if its on a device that can also record)The other big reason is cpu, which directly translates into battery life of portable devices.Besides that there is still availability.
If I send someone an mp3, they can play it on pretty much any computer out of the box in the last 10 years.
Or any portable music player.
Or most cellphones.If I send them a FLAC, unless they're already hip to lossless stuff, very few environments will let them play it without additional effort.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258476180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The small size of lossy audio was an important factor when storage capacity was limited.  This is no longer an issue, so there's not much reason to bother with lossy music when dealing with the storage capacity of current devices.  100GB of music would be an absolutely massive collection, yet that would only occupy less than 10\% of a US$100 1TB drive.  The 16GB common is portable devices is enough for more FLAC than you would listen to for even a fairly lengthy journey.  It's certainly still of use in streaming media, but the bar for quality isn't usually set very high in that area.  Full CD quality FLAC streams should be usable on home broadband within 5 years, I would hope...</p><p>The reasons to argue against FLAC just aren't that relevant anymore.  Bits are cheap, who cares if you save a few?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The small size of lossy audio was an important factor when storage capacity was limited .
This is no longer an issue , so there 's not much reason to bother with lossy music when dealing with the storage capacity of current devices .
100GB of music would be an absolutely massive collection , yet that would only occupy less than 10 \ % of a US $ 100 1TB drive .
The 16GB common is portable devices is enough for more FLAC than you would listen to for even a fairly lengthy journey .
It 's certainly still of use in streaming media , but the bar for quality is n't usually set very high in that area .
Full CD quality FLAC streams should be usable on home broadband within 5 years , I would hope...The reasons to argue against FLAC just are n't that relevant anymore .
Bits are cheap , who cares if you save a few ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The small size of lossy audio was an important factor when storage capacity was limited.
This is no longer an issue, so there's not much reason to bother with lossy music when dealing with the storage capacity of current devices.
100GB of music would be an absolutely massive collection, yet that would only occupy less than 10\% of a US$100 1TB drive.
The 16GB common is portable devices is enough for more FLAC than you would listen to for even a fairly lengthy journey.
It's certainly still of use in streaming media, but the bar for quality isn't usually set very high in that area.
Full CD quality FLAC streams should be usable on home broadband within 5 years, I would hope...The reasons to argue against FLAC just aren't that relevant anymore.
Bits are cheap, who cares if you save a few?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140876</id>
	<title>Re:It does depend on the recording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If that means I have "tin ears" I'm thankful for them. They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.</p></div><p>You must be really sad you're not deaf then. That'd save you even more $$.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that means I have " tin ears " I 'm thankful for them .
They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.You must be really sad you 're not deaf then .
That 'd save you even more $ $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that means I have "tin ears" I'm thankful for them.
They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.You must be really sad you're not deaf then.
That'd save you even more $$.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154796</id>
	<title>right, but with reason</title>
	<author>ticktickboom</author>
	<datestamp>1258637220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the average person cant tell on a car or bike ect ect, like the first comment.  we also cant tell using a sb live crap...i mean card, or a pair of tin can speakers.  you need the hard ware.  most of us do not have the hard ware.  so the article is correct, but makes it look as if the populace is that deaf we cannot tell.</p><p>the artical should be more clear about having the hardware.  creative cant product lossless sound, cept for the high end stuffs.  200+ dollars.  where as turd beach (if you can get it to werk) or bluegears, oxygen, their top end cards for less than 1/2 the price creative charges.</p><p>wish authors would give the facts on both sides of the issue, not 1.  but thats newspeak for ya</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the average person cant tell on a car or bike ect ect , like the first comment .
we also cant tell using a sb live crap...i mean card , or a pair of tin can speakers .
you need the hard ware .
most of us do not have the hard ware .
so the article is correct , but makes it look as if the populace is that deaf we can not tell.the artical should be more clear about having the hardware .
creative cant product lossless sound , cept for the high end stuffs .
200 + dollars .
where as turd beach ( if you can get it to werk ) or bluegears , oxygen , their top end cards for less than 1/2 the price creative charges.wish authors would give the facts on both sides of the issue , not 1. but thats newspeak for ya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the average person cant tell on a car or bike ect ect, like the first comment.
we also cant tell using a sb live crap...i mean card, or a pair of tin can speakers.
you need the hard ware.
most of us do not have the hard ware.
so the article is correct, but makes it look as if the populace is that deaf we cannot tell.the artical should be more clear about having the hardware.
creative cant product lossless sound, cept for the high end stuffs.
200+ dollars.
where as turd beach (if you can get it to werk) or bluegears, oxygen, their top end cards for less than 1/2 the price creative charges.wish authors would give the facts on both sides of the issue, not 1.  but thats newspeak for ya</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140522</id>
	<title>Because they are supposed to be hard to tell ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fraunhofer spent considerable time and effort to build a lossy codec that was indistinguishable, to most listeners, from uncompressed music (44.1/16-bit) files. mp3 codecs (and the improved codecs that followed, such as AAC or Ogg) all craft the file in such a way as to make the parts "thrown out" the least noticeable and the parts "we keep" the most important cues. Unlike other digital audio compression methods that preceded them, mp3 codecs are built from the ground up to retain most or all of the music signal that human hearing and the brain need to enjoy a satisfying musical performance, and to concentrate on discarding what seems unnecessary to that end.</p><p>That they succeeded is hardly groundbreaking news. That some listeners can tell the difference is also hardly groundbreaking news; there were a significant minority amongst Franuhofer's listening panels who were almost always able to discern which was which. At some point the majority of casual listeners were not able to do so with any consistency. That's when they said "OK, we'll use this method, then."</p><p>There is nothing wrong with well engineered lossy codecs, as anyone who has even a passing familiarity with sat radio or mp3 via computer or music player can easily attest. To say there is no difference, or that an mp3 is "CD quality", is the kind of hyperbole that can't go unchallenged. To be a bit more honest and say "it sounds pretty good"  or "I like the way it sounds" is fine, however.</p><p>Most people are OK with some form of lossy codec; in the environment we most often listen these days, it's limitations are not drawbacks, and possibly not even evident (i.e. in a car; there is plenty of extraneous sound to mask most limitations of compressed audio; and as anyone who has ever used a sound pressure meter in a running vehicle on even a deserted road can tell you, the low-frequency noise of any automobile just going about it's business is very high and much of it is subsonic, which we can't normally hear but none the less masks lower-level detail information on music we might be listening to). It's not a crime to say you're OK with mp3, even if you can tell the difference between lossy and lossless formats.</p><p>There's a saying in the sound industry: "Musicians have the worst stereos". And, generally, they do. The reason has more to do with how they listen than what they're listening on: musicians will mentally fill in the sound by following the notes themselves, and things like the beat, the rhythm, the tone, and the timing of the players and their instruments. It's as if they are playing the notes themselves, in their heads, and they need only the elemental cues to do so.</p><p>If you love a song, you don't have to hear it under ideal conditions to enjoy the performance. These are the kinds of things Fraunhofer concentrated on making sure remained in the mp3 after compression. It's supposed to sound good; that was the whole point, and that's why the Fraunhofer codecs succeeded, despite the royalty payments due.</p><p>All that still does not take away from the enjoyment of uncompressed formats, reproduced competently by accurate equipment, in the appropriate environment. Your car or via earbuds on the street are not those types of environments, and mp3s etc are perfectly reasonable compromises between quality and the need for reduced data footprints. There is a place for both uncompressed and compressed formats; they are not mutually exclusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fraunhofer spent considerable time and effort to build a lossy codec that was indistinguishable , to most listeners , from uncompressed music ( 44.1/16-bit ) files .
mp3 codecs ( and the improved codecs that followed , such as AAC or Ogg ) all craft the file in such a way as to make the parts " thrown out " the least noticeable and the parts " we keep " the most important cues .
Unlike other digital audio compression methods that preceded them , mp3 codecs are built from the ground up to retain most or all of the music signal that human hearing and the brain need to enjoy a satisfying musical performance , and to concentrate on discarding what seems unnecessary to that end.That they succeeded is hardly groundbreaking news .
That some listeners can tell the difference is also hardly groundbreaking news ; there were a significant minority amongst Franuhofer 's listening panels who were almost always able to discern which was which .
At some point the majority of casual listeners were not able to do so with any consistency .
That 's when they said " OK , we 'll use this method , then .
" There is nothing wrong with well engineered lossy codecs , as anyone who has even a passing familiarity with sat radio or mp3 via computer or music player can easily attest .
To say there is no difference , or that an mp3 is " CD quality " , is the kind of hyperbole that ca n't go unchallenged .
To be a bit more honest and say " it sounds pretty good " or " I like the way it sounds " is fine , however.Most people are OK with some form of lossy codec ; in the environment we most often listen these days , it 's limitations are not drawbacks , and possibly not even evident ( i.e .
in a car ; there is plenty of extraneous sound to mask most limitations of compressed audio ; and as anyone who has ever used a sound pressure meter in a running vehicle on even a deserted road can tell you , the low-frequency noise of any automobile just going about it 's business is very high and much of it is subsonic , which we ca n't normally hear but none the less masks lower-level detail information on music we might be listening to ) .
It 's not a crime to say you 're OK with mp3 , even if you can tell the difference between lossy and lossless formats.There 's a saying in the sound industry : " Musicians have the worst stereos " .
And , generally , they do .
The reason has more to do with how they listen than what they 're listening on : musicians will mentally fill in the sound by following the notes themselves , and things like the beat , the rhythm , the tone , and the timing of the players and their instruments .
It 's as if they are playing the notes themselves , in their heads , and they need only the elemental cues to do so.If you love a song , you do n't have to hear it under ideal conditions to enjoy the performance .
These are the kinds of things Fraunhofer concentrated on making sure remained in the mp3 after compression .
It 's supposed to sound good ; that was the whole point , and that 's why the Fraunhofer codecs succeeded , despite the royalty payments due.All that still does not take away from the enjoyment of uncompressed formats , reproduced competently by accurate equipment , in the appropriate environment .
Your car or via earbuds on the street are not those types of environments , and mp3s etc are perfectly reasonable compromises between quality and the need for reduced data footprints .
There is a place for both uncompressed and compressed formats ; they are not mutually exclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fraunhofer spent considerable time and effort to build a lossy codec that was indistinguishable, to most listeners, from uncompressed music (44.1/16-bit) files.
mp3 codecs (and the improved codecs that followed, such as AAC or Ogg) all craft the file in such a way as to make the parts "thrown out" the least noticeable and the parts "we keep" the most important cues.
Unlike other digital audio compression methods that preceded them, mp3 codecs are built from the ground up to retain most or all of the music signal that human hearing and the brain need to enjoy a satisfying musical performance, and to concentrate on discarding what seems unnecessary to that end.That they succeeded is hardly groundbreaking news.
That some listeners can tell the difference is also hardly groundbreaking news; there were a significant minority amongst Franuhofer's listening panels who were almost always able to discern which was which.
At some point the majority of casual listeners were not able to do so with any consistency.
That's when they said "OK, we'll use this method, then.
"There is nothing wrong with well engineered lossy codecs, as anyone who has even a passing familiarity with sat radio or mp3 via computer or music player can easily attest.
To say there is no difference, or that an mp3 is "CD quality", is the kind of hyperbole that can't go unchallenged.
To be a bit more honest and say "it sounds pretty good"  or "I like the way it sounds" is fine, however.Most people are OK with some form of lossy codec; in the environment we most often listen these days, it's limitations are not drawbacks, and possibly not even evident (i.e.
in a car; there is plenty of extraneous sound to mask most limitations of compressed audio; and as anyone who has ever used a sound pressure meter in a running vehicle on even a deserted road can tell you, the low-frequency noise of any automobile just going about it's business is very high and much of it is subsonic, which we can't normally hear but none the less masks lower-level detail information on music we might be listening to).
It's not a crime to say you're OK with mp3, even if you can tell the difference between lossy and lossless formats.There's a saying in the sound industry: "Musicians have the worst stereos".
And, generally, they do.
The reason has more to do with how they listen than what they're listening on: musicians will mentally fill in the sound by following the notes themselves, and things like the beat, the rhythm, the tone, and the timing of the players and their instruments.
It's as if they are playing the notes themselves, in their heads, and they need only the elemental cues to do so.If you love a song, you don't have to hear it under ideal conditions to enjoy the performance.
These are the kinds of things Fraunhofer concentrated on making sure remained in the mp3 after compression.
It's supposed to sound good; that was the whole point, and that's why the Fraunhofer codecs succeeded, despite the royalty payments due.All that still does not take away from the enjoyment of uncompressed formats, reproduced competently by accurate equipment, in the appropriate environment.
Your car or via earbuds on the street are not those types of environments, and mp3s etc are perfectly reasonable compromises between quality and the need for reduced data footprints.
There is a place for both uncompressed and compressed formats; they are not mutually exclusive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141626</id>
	<title>All i need is bass...</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1257076320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Duc Duc</htmltext>
<tokenext>Duc Duc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duc Duc</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142514</id>
	<title>But what speaker wire did you use?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1257085980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you use thousand dollar oxygen-free copper dielectrically balanced speaker wire, or did you use <a href="http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?s=97d4a3c39d247bf955a57b3953326a34&amp;p=15412&amp;postcount=28" title="audioholics.com">a bunch of coat hangers</a> [audioholics.com]?</p><p>Personally, I think that MP3 is warmer and more human than these newfangled "lossless" formats, anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you use thousand dollar oxygen-free copper dielectrically balanced speaker wire , or did you use a bunch of coat hangers [ audioholics.com ] ? Personally , I think that MP3 is warmer and more human than these newfangled " lossless " formats , anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you use thousand dollar oxygen-free copper dielectrically balanced speaker wire, or did you use a bunch of coat hangers [audioholics.com]?Personally, I think that MP3 is warmer and more human than these newfangled "lossless" formats, anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139052</id>
	<title>we need more...</title>
	<author>Slurpee</author>
	<datestamp>1258474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick and dirty tests are not good enough to test this.</p><p>We need significant sample sizes, double blind testing, and appropriately rigorous scientific methodology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick and dirty tests are not good enough to test this.We need significant sample sizes , double blind testing , and appropriately rigorous scientific methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick and dirty tests are not good enough to test this.We need significant sample sizes, double blind testing, and appropriately rigorous scientific methodology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144072</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1257093000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a fine test design...</p><p>If you have two identical pieces of music and you require people to rank them in order of preference, then the results will necessarily be perfectly random. This provides a built-in calibration.</p><p>Conversely, if the results are not random, then the people could necessarily tell differences in them.</p><p>Imagine if you merely asked people to say whether they perceived a difference but without asking them which one they prefer. Such a design would have no built-in "calibration", in the sense that it has no objective way of signalling when two pieces are identical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a fine test design...If you have two identical pieces of music and you require people to rank them in order of preference , then the results will necessarily be perfectly random .
This provides a built-in calibration.Conversely , if the results are not random , then the people could necessarily tell differences in them.Imagine if you merely asked people to say whether they perceived a difference but without asking them which one they prefer .
Such a design would have no built-in " calibration " , in the sense that it has no objective way of signalling when two pieces are identical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a fine test design...If you have two identical pieces of music and you require people to rank them in order of preference, then the results will necessarily be perfectly random.
This provides a built-in calibration.Conversely, if the results are not random, then the people could necessarily tell differences in them.Imagine if you merely asked people to say whether they perceived a difference but without asking them which one they prefer.
Such a design would have no built-in "calibration", in the sense that it has no objective way of signalling when two pieces are identical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140944</id>
	<title>Re:Amateur rocket scientists...</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1257066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's. The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo. If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original. ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.</p></div><p>You sound pretty sure about what you say, you must be correct. Of course you missed some little things, like the resolution of the samples (16-bit, 32-bit), who is the listener (a child, an adult? we are not all *exactly* equal, so what's the frame of reference?), what the audio contains (for ex. speech codecs will reproduce speech without perceptible loss at bitrate X, but fail at music).<br> <br>

Also you fail to state which masking effects does this take into account. The matter of the fact is, this is indeed a science, and it's not nearly done. New and better ways of masking content are discovered all the time, and new and better mathematical ways of describing the resulting models also are introduced all the time. Citing a single arbitrary number for bitrate, like you did, means absolutely nothing without context.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to the question is quite simple , and has been known since the 1980 's .
The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo .
If you 're encoding below that , it ca n't possibly be indistinguishable from the original .
ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.You sound pretty sure about what you say , you must be correct .
Of course you missed some little things , like the resolution of the samples ( 16-bit , 32-bit ) , who is the listener ( a child , an adult ?
we are not all * exactly * equal , so what 's the frame of reference ?
) , what the audio contains ( for ex .
speech codecs will reproduce speech without perceptible loss at bitrate X , but fail at music ) .
Also you fail to state which masking effects does this take into account .
The matter of the fact is , this is indeed a science , and it 's not nearly done .
New and better ways of masking content are discovered all the time , and new and better mathematical ways of describing the resulting models also are introduced all the time .
Citing a single arbitrary number for bitrate , like you did , means absolutely nothing without context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's.
The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo.
If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original.
ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.You sound pretty sure about what you say, you must be correct.
Of course you missed some little things, like the resolution of the samples (16-bit, 32-bit), who is the listener (a child, an adult?
we are not all *exactly* equal, so what's the frame of reference?
), what the audio contains (for ex.
speech codecs will reproduce speech without perceptible loss at bitrate X, but fail at music).
Also you fail to state which masking effects does this take into account.
The matter of the fact is, this is indeed a science, and it's not nearly done.
New and better ways of masking content are discovered all the time, and new and better mathematical ways of describing the resulting models also are introduced all the time.
Citing a single arbitrary number for bitrate, like you did, means absolutely nothing without context.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141438</id>
	<title>And who cares about "most people"?</title>
	<author>zarlino</author>
	<datestamp>1257073800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find disturbing that quality standards should be tested on uneducated random people. Obviously they can't distinguish between MP3 and FLAC. They also cannot tell the difference between Brahms and Mahler. However this doesn't mean that we can now ditch Mahler symphonies in favor of Brahms'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find disturbing that quality standards should be tested on uneducated random people .
Obviously they ca n't distinguish between MP3 and FLAC .
They also can not tell the difference between Brahms and Mahler .
However this does n't mean that we can now ditch Mahler symphonies in favor of Brahms' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find disturbing that quality standards should be tested on uneducated random people.
Obviously they can't distinguish between MP3 and FLAC.
They also cannot tell the difference between Brahms and Mahler.
However this doesn't mean that we can now ditch Mahler symphonies in favor of Brahms'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141332</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And for some reason audiophiles never realize how huge a precision 16 bits actually is. If we assume that vinyl record has similar precision as CD it would mean (assuming 50 um movements of the needle) precision of dislocation about 0.7 &#197;. (0.7nm) which is about the size of helium atom. I'd really like to see what kind of magical disk they have where they can control groove sizes at subatomic scales!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And for some reason audiophiles never realize how huge a precision 16 bits actually is .
If we assume that vinyl record has similar precision as CD it would mean ( assuming 50 um movements of the needle ) precision of dislocation about 0.7   .
( 0.7nm ) which is about the size of helium atom .
I 'd really like to see what kind of magical disk they have where they can control groove sizes at subatomic scales !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for some reason audiophiles never realize how huge a precision 16 bits actually is.
If we assume that vinyl record has similar precision as CD it would mean (assuming 50 um movements of the needle) precision of dislocation about 0.7 Å.
(0.7nm) which is about the size of helium atom.
I'd really like to see what kind of magical disk they have where they can control groove sizes at subatomic scales!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146960</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>phliar</author>
	<datestamp>1257104700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest. With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.</p></div></blockquote><p>And you, having listened to those 15 kHz sine, square, and sawtooth waves recorded on LP can distinguish them, right?

</p><p>Stay in school, son.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest .
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave , a square wave , or a sawtooth wave ; all will sound exactly the same.And you , having listened to those 15 kHz sine , square , and sawtooth waves recorded on LP can distinguish them , right ?
Stay in school , son .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest.
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.And you, having listened to those 15 kHz sine, square, and sawtooth waves recorded on LP can distinguish them, right?
Stay in school, son.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139152</id>
	<title>obvious explanation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pop tracks are typically mixed in part to sound good over portable, low-res speakers, and when accompanied by road noise, etc.  Many albums sound muffled and unnatural when played on high-end systems that deliver flat frequency response.  This has been true for the past fifty years.  Pop may account for the majority of what people listen to today, but many people like to listen to classical, jazz, and other mostly-acoustic music at least a portion of the time, and that's when superior fidelity can make a big difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pop tracks are typically mixed in part to sound good over portable , low-res speakers , and when accompanied by road noise , etc .
Many albums sound muffled and unnatural when played on high-end systems that deliver flat frequency response .
This has been true for the past fifty years .
Pop may account for the majority of what people listen to today , but many people like to listen to classical , jazz , and other mostly-acoustic music at least a portion of the time , and that 's when superior fidelity can make a big difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pop tracks are typically mixed in part to sound good over portable, low-res speakers, and when accompanied by road noise, etc.
Many albums sound muffled and unnatural when played on high-end systems that deliver flat frequency response.
This has been true for the past fifty years.
Pop may account for the majority of what people listen to today, but many people like to listen to classical, jazz, and other mostly-acoustic music at least a portion of the time, and that's when superior fidelity can make a big difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140276</id>
	<title>equipment</title>
	<author>FonkiE</author>
	<datestamp>1258484280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IRL we have headphones for $40 or the "free" ones that come with the player. or computer speakers, etc.</p><p>we have noises all around. at home. in the subway. wherever.</p><p>so honestly what does it matter. 160Kb/s aac, 192Kb/s mp3, FLAC, full PCM.</p><p>all of the 4 above sound *nearly* equally great in a "test" environment. and while walking down the steet with an mp3 player. it does not matter what of the above formats you use.</p><p>PLEASE at some point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just enjoy the music, k?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IRL we have headphones for $ 40 or the " free " ones that come with the player .
or computer speakers , etc.we have noises all around .
at home .
in the subway .
wherever.so honestly what does it matter .
160Kb/s aac , 192Kb/s mp3 , FLAC , full PCM.all of the 4 above sound * nearly * equally great in a " test " environment .
and while walking down the steet with an mp3 player .
it does not matter what of the above formats you use.PLEASE at some point ... just enjoy the music , k ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IRL we have headphones for $40 or the "free" ones that come with the player.
or computer speakers, etc.we have noises all around.
at home.
in the subway.
wherever.so honestly what does it matter.
160Kb/s aac, 192Kb/s mp3, FLAC, full PCM.all of the 4 above sound *nearly* equally great in a "test" environment.
and while walking down the steet with an mp3 player.
it does not matter what of the above formats you use.PLEASE at some point ... just enjoy the music, k?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140738</id>
	<title>No,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If "The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version." then not visiting it at all is recommended, adblock and flashblock notwithstanding. You want to astroturf, then find an article that understands how the web works (eg, that it can scroll)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If " The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version .
" then not visiting it at all is recommended , adblock and flashblock notwithstanding .
You want to astroturf , then find an article that understands how the web works ( eg , that it can scroll )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If "The article is spread over 6 pages and there is no print version.
" then not visiting it at all is recommended, adblock and flashblock notwithstanding.
You want to astroturf, then find an article that understands how the web works (eg, that it can scroll)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139446</id>
	<title>Viva la difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I sure-as-hell can tell the difference, but I'm almost 50, so I remember what real high fidelity is supposed to sound like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I sure-as-hell can tell the difference , but I 'm almost 50 , so I remember what real high fidelity is supposed to sound like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I sure-as-hell can tell the difference, but I'm almost 50, so I remember what real high fidelity is supposed to sound like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141618</id>
	<title>Ahhh Yeah I can tell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's like telling me you can't tell the difference screwing bareback or with a rubber. Uhh yeah I can tell</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like telling me you ca n't tell the difference screwing bareback or with a rubber .
Uhh yeah I can tell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like telling me you can't tell the difference screwing bareback or with a rubber.
Uhh yeah I can tell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139148</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries, and it's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself. How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?</p></div><p>Slashdot has ads?<br>
<br>
*turns off adblock*<br> <br>
Oh. Huh.<br> <br>
*turns adblock back on*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries , and it 's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself .
How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story ? Slashdot has ads ?
* turns off adblock * Oh .
Huh . * turns adblock back on *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries, and it's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself.
How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?Slashdot has ads?
*turns off adblock* 
Oh.
Huh. 
*turns adblock back on*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139660</id>
	<title>Storage has made this futile, but a nice DAC helps</title>
	<author>nandrosa</author>
	<datestamp>1258479000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it has been mentioned that bits are cheap now, and that today's 2TB internal hard drives will hold 2,857 uncompressed full-length audio CDs, I saw one other person (posting anonymously) about a digital to analog converter (DAC). I don't expect everybody to hear marginal differences in encoding quality when the components on their computer sound card have 15\% voltage tolerances. When you're taking 0s and 1s and marching them gracefully in to the range of 65,536 discrete values, precision matters. If you don't believe me, ask an electrical engineer for yourself. I went from a Xitel HiFi Link (USB audio device) to a used Stello DA220 MKI, and the difference was night and day. At that point the DAC was the weakest link in my system, which allowed me to fully appreciate the difference it made. Personally I rip CDs to the Apple Lossless format, because it's convenient and I like iTunes. However, I can also playback with foobar2000 and the WASAPI plugin on Vista/W7 for that 'bitperfect' output. If you anticipate at any point beginning to care about sound quality, I suggest you rip to lossless (or uncompressed) from day one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it has been mentioned that bits are cheap now , and that today 's 2TB internal hard drives will hold 2,857 uncompressed full-length audio CDs , I saw one other person ( posting anonymously ) about a digital to analog converter ( DAC ) .
I do n't expect everybody to hear marginal differences in encoding quality when the components on their computer sound card have 15 \ % voltage tolerances .
When you 're taking 0s and 1s and marching them gracefully in to the range of 65,536 discrete values , precision matters .
If you do n't believe me , ask an electrical engineer for yourself .
I went from a Xitel HiFi Link ( USB audio device ) to a used Stello DA220 MKI , and the difference was night and day .
At that point the DAC was the weakest link in my system , which allowed me to fully appreciate the difference it made .
Personally I rip CDs to the Apple Lossless format , because it 's convenient and I like iTunes .
However , I can also playback with foobar2000 and the WASAPI plugin on Vista/W7 for that 'bitperfect ' output .
If you anticipate at any point beginning to care about sound quality , I suggest you rip to lossless ( or uncompressed ) from day one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it has been mentioned that bits are cheap now, and that today's 2TB internal hard drives will hold 2,857 uncompressed full-length audio CDs, I saw one other person (posting anonymously) about a digital to analog converter (DAC).
I don't expect everybody to hear marginal differences in encoding quality when the components on their computer sound card have 15\% voltage tolerances.
When you're taking 0s and 1s and marching them gracefully in to the range of 65,536 discrete values, precision matters.
If you don't believe me, ask an electrical engineer for yourself.
I went from a Xitel HiFi Link (USB audio device) to a used Stello DA220 MKI, and the difference was night and day.
At that point the DAC was the weakest link in my system, which allowed me to fully appreciate the difference it made.
Personally I rip CDs to the Apple Lossless format, because it's convenient and I like iTunes.
However, I can also playback with foobar2000 and the WASAPI plugin on Vista/W7 for that 'bitperfect' output.
If you anticipate at any point beginning to care about sound quality, I suggest you rip to lossless (or uncompressed) from day one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140456</id>
	<title>They still hear the difference</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258486200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>In this quick and dirty test, a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files.</i> </p><p>It might have been pointed out before, but if they actually can tell the difference and prefer one from the other then it still means there's a difference. That they grew to like the artifacts due to MP3 compression is a different story from the fact we can actually tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this quick and dirty test , a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files .
It might have been pointed out before , but if they actually can tell the difference and prefer one from the other then it still means there 's a difference .
That they grew to like the artifacts due to MP3 compression is a different story from the fact we can actually tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In this quick and dirty test, a worrying preponderance of subjects rated the MP3 encodes higher than the FLAC files.
It might have been pointed out before, but if they actually can tell the difference and prefer one from the other then it still means there's a difference.
That they grew to like the artifacts due to MP3 compression is a different story from the fact we can actually tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140936</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>Rebelgecko</author>
	<datestamp>1257066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that you have the ability to hear artifacts from the sampling rate?<br>44,100hz (a typical sample rate) is quite a few gaps per second!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry if I 'm misunderstanding , but are you saying that you have the ability to hear artifacts from the sampling rate ? 44,100hz ( a typical sample rate ) is quite a few gaps per second !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that you have the ability to hear artifacts from the sampling rate?44,100hz (a typical sample rate) is quite a few gaps per second!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141998</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>therealkevinkretz</author>
	<datestamp>1257080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear. You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body."

No, it doesn't.  No, you can't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you can not hear .
You ca n't hear this data , but you can feel it , physically with your body .
" No , it does n't .
No , you ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Vinyl is the only format of the three that contains very high and very low frequency data that you cannot hear.
You can't hear this data, but you can feel it, physically with your body.
"

No, it doesn't.
No, you can't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140598</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Matheus</author>
	<datestamp>1258487820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes... and as I good audio engineer, any recording I mix gets played on a LOT of different devices / formats before it sees the light of day.  It's just good practice.  The funny part about that is you're working towards the law of averages:  I can make a recording sound absolutely perfect on one device (say my professional cans for example) but to make it also sound good on say my studio monitors (not so bad) or my home stereo (worse) or my car stereo (even worse)  I have to actually make it sound worse on the first media.  Eventually it sounds good on all but it loses some quality on the individual along the way.</p><p>Back to the original topic: Yeah... long story short most people have dumb ears.  Most people have been damaging their ears with buds or pumpin' systems or rockin' concerts OR were just born with lesser aural capability and so can't hear what I can (heck *I* can't even hear what I once could.. downside of being a sound engineer.. we abuse our ears WAY too much no matter how much we try to protect ourselves)  That doesn't mean the difference doesn't matter.</p><p>Take a recording with better fidelity played on a decent system and I say anyone's experience improves.  They might not know they are hearing it and given a quick side-by-side which most of these experiments are and they will randomly answer the question. (Any of you with glasses will know what I mean... "Is A better, or B?"  Sometimes it's clear (say 64K MP3) sometimes not so much (say 256K MP3)  and it doesn't matter when the original source sucks to begin with.)  anyway... the brain can hear what the conscious can't necessarily pick out and in a listening session your experience will improve whether you consciously know it or not.</p><p>Adding in the fact most people have crappy systems (buds, speakers, etc.) just means the worse sound is being reproduced worse.  It's still worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes... and as I good audio engineer , any recording I mix gets played on a LOT of different devices / formats before it sees the light of day .
It 's just good practice .
The funny part about that is you 're working towards the law of averages : I can make a recording sound absolutely perfect on one device ( say my professional cans for example ) but to make it also sound good on say my studio monitors ( not so bad ) or my home stereo ( worse ) or my car stereo ( even worse ) I have to actually make it sound worse on the first media .
Eventually it sounds good on all but it loses some quality on the individual along the way.Back to the original topic : Yeah... long story short most people have dumb ears .
Most people have been damaging their ears with buds or pumpin ' systems or rockin ' concerts OR were just born with lesser aural capability and so ca n't hear what I can ( heck * I * ca n't even hear what I once could.. downside of being a sound engineer.. we abuse our ears WAY too much no matter how much we try to protect ourselves ) That does n't mean the difference does n't matter.Take a recording with better fidelity played on a decent system and I say anyone 's experience improves .
They might not know they are hearing it and given a quick side-by-side which most of these experiments are and they will randomly answer the question .
( Any of you with glasses will know what I mean... " Is A better , or B ?
" Sometimes it 's clear ( say 64K MP3 ) sometimes not so much ( say 256K MP3 ) and it does n't matter when the original source sucks to begin with .
) anyway... the brain can hear what the conscious ca n't necessarily pick out and in a listening session your experience will improve whether you consciously know it or not.Adding in the fact most people have crappy systems ( buds , speakers , etc .
) just means the worse sound is being reproduced worse .
It 's still worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes... and as I good audio engineer, any recording I mix gets played on a LOT of different devices / formats before it sees the light of day.
It's just good practice.
The funny part about that is you're working towards the law of averages:  I can make a recording sound absolutely perfect on one device (say my professional cans for example) but to make it also sound good on say my studio monitors (not so bad) or my home stereo (worse) or my car stereo (even worse)  I have to actually make it sound worse on the first media.
Eventually it sounds good on all but it loses some quality on the individual along the way.Back to the original topic: Yeah... long story short most people have dumb ears.
Most people have been damaging their ears with buds or pumpin' systems or rockin' concerts OR were just born with lesser aural capability and so can't hear what I can (heck *I* can't even hear what I once could.. downside of being a sound engineer.. we abuse our ears WAY too much no matter how much we try to protect ourselves)  That doesn't mean the difference doesn't matter.Take a recording with better fidelity played on a decent system and I say anyone's experience improves.
They might not know they are hearing it and given a quick side-by-side which most of these experiments are and they will randomly answer the question.
(Any of you with glasses will know what I mean... "Is A better, or B?
"  Sometimes it's clear (say 64K MP3) sometimes not so much (say 256K MP3)  and it doesn't matter when the original source sucks to begin with.
)  anyway... the brain can hear what the conscious can't necessarily pick out and in a listening session your experience will improve whether you consciously know it or not.Adding in the fact most people have crappy systems (buds, speakers, etc.
) just means the worse sound is being reproduced worse.
It's still worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139722</id>
	<title>Re:It does depend on the recording</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1258479660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was wondering about this basic question a while ago. My dad is a (low-level) audiophile. I played the same track (Bach's Air for G String) in a double blind test using FLAC, MP3 128, 192, 256, and 320kbps, 44.1khz sample rate. Vandersteen Model 2Ce Signature II speakers (~= $2200/pair), not sure off the top of my head of the sound card but it's mid-range. Using Foobar 2000's ABX comparator he could easily tell the 128kbps from the FLAC, fell just inside the range for statistical significance (P-value 0.048) on the 192, and was unable to tell the difference between anything higher and the FLAC. (Actually, he gave up on the 320kbps track, as he felt he could not hear any differences and was merely guessing. He did not know the results of the previous tests.)

While this is merely an anecdote, the ABX comparator in Foobar is easy to use. Similar tests with various styles of music could easily become a reliable study.

At some point I should also test re-encoding from 320 to 128 vs flac to 128. I store my music as FLAC because of the conventional wisdom that re-encoding from lossless is always going to be better than from lossy, but I'm not sure how much better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering about this basic question a while ago .
My dad is a ( low-level ) audiophile .
I played the same track ( Bach 's Air for G String ) in a double blind test using FLAC , MP3 128 , 192 , 256 , and 320kbps , 44.1khz sample rate .
Vandersteen Model 2Ce Signature II speakers ( ~ = $ 2200/pair ) , not sure off the top of my head of the sound card but it 's mid-range .
Using Foobar 2000 's ABX comparator he could easily tell the 128kbps from the FLAC , fell just inside the range for statistical significance ( P-value 0.048 ) on the 192 , and was unable to tell the difference between anything higher and the FLAC .
( Actually , he gave up on the 320kbps track , as he felt he could not hear any differences and was merely guessing .
He did not know the results of the previous tests .
) While this is merely an anecdote , the ABX comparator in Foobar is easy to use .
Similar tests with various styles of music could easily become a reliable study .
At some point I should also test re-encoding from 320 to 128 vs flac to 128 .
I store my music as FLAC because of the conventional wisdom that re-encoding from lossless is always going to be better than from lossy , but I 'm not sure how much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering about this basic question a while ago.
My dad is a (low-level) audiophile.
I played the same track (Bach's Air for G String) in a double blind test using FLAC, MP3 128, 192, 256, and 320kbps, 44.1khz sample rate.
Vandersteen Model 2Ce Signature II speakers (~= $2200/pair), not sure off the top of my head of the sound card but it's mid-range.
Using Foobar 2000's ABX comparator he could easily tell the 128kbps from the FLAC, fell just inside the range for statistical significance (P-value 0.048) on the 192, and was unable to tell the difference between anything higher and the FLAC.
(Actually, he gave up on the 320kbps track, as he felt he could not hear any differences and was merely guessing.
He did not know the results of the previous tests.
)

While this is merely an anecdote, the ABX comparator in Foobar is easy to use.
Similar tests with various styles of music could easily become a reliable study.
At some point I should also test re-encoding from 320 to 128 vs flac to 128.
I store my music as FLAC because of the conventional wisdom that re-encoding from lossless is always going to be better than from lossy, but I'm not sure how much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs (stylus, cartridge coils, tonearm, not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string (almost independent of bit rate) is deluding themselves.</i></p><p>You have no grasp whatever how a turntable works. The "tiny grooves and wiggles" are a very precice analog of the sound waveforms themselves. They are so accurate that in the early 1970s they developed "quadrophonics", a four channel system that had the rear channels modulated with a 40 khz tone in the front channels.</p><p>Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest. With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs ( stylus , cartridge coils , tonearm , not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself ) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string ( almost independent of bit rate ) is deluding themselves.You have no grasp whatever how a turntable works .
The " tiny grooves and wiggles " are a very precice analog of the sound waveforms themselves .
They are so accurate that in the early 1970s they developed " quadrophonics " , a four channel system that had the rear channels modulated with a 40 khz tone in the front channels.Meanwhile , a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest .
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave , a square wave , or a sawtooth wave ; all will sound exactly the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs (stylus, cartridge coils, tonearm, not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string (almost independent of bit rate) is deluding themselves.You have no grasp whatever how a turntable works.
The "tiny grooves and wiggles" are a very precice analog of the sound waveforms themselves.
They are so accurate that in the early 1970s they developed "quadrophonics", a four channel system that had the rear channels modulated with a 40 khz tone in the front channels.Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest.
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139194</id>
	<title>Music as most actually hear it is far better today</title>
	<author>Doghouse Riley</author>
	<datestamp>1258475580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>......than it was, say, in the '60s or '70s.<br><br>All that lovely vinyl with its great warmth was in fact listened to, by most people, on $79 fold-down "stereos" from Sears with $2 ceramic styli.  Or on car radios with a single 4-inch speaker in the dash.<br><br>I find it totally plausible that "the kids" today are hearing better sound, even at 192 kbps and after the loudness wars, than my big sister was when she listened to her copy of "Meet The Beatles" for the eightieth time on her tabletop "Hi-Fi".</htmltext>
<tokenext>......than it was , say , in the '60s or '70s.All that lovely vinyl with its great warmth was in fact listened to , by most people , on $ 79 fold-down " stereos " from Sears with $ 2 ceramic styli .
Or on car radios with a single 4-inch speaker in the dash.I find it totally plausible that " the kids " today are hearing better sound , even at 192 kbps and after the loudness wars , than my big sister was when she listened to her copy of " Meet The Beatles " for the eightieth time on her tabletop " Hi-Fi " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>......than it was, say, in the '60s or '70s.All that lovely vinyl with its great warmth was in fact listened to, by most people, on $79 fold-down "stereos" from Sears with $2 ceramic styli.
Or on car radios with a single 4-inch speaker in the dash.I find it totally plausible that "the kids" today are hearing better sound, even at 192 kbps and after the loudness wars, than my big sister was when she listened to her copy of "Meet The Beatles" for the eightieth time on her tabletop "Hi-Fi".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148016</id>
	<title>Analog</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257066780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people cant even tell the difference between a sampled and compressed MP3 compared to the original analog source.</p><p>How do you expect them to compare to 2 different digital formats?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people cant even tell the difference between a sampled and compressed MP3 compared to the original analog source.How do you expect them to compare to 2 different digital formats ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people cant even tell the difference between a sampled and compressed MP3 compared to the original analog source.How do you expect them to compare to 2 different digital formats?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159818</id>
	<title>Re:Ya this was a horrible test</title>
	<author>neersign</author>
	<datestamp>1258656960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i agree the test should be "which sounds <i>correct</i>", not "better".  They should also test and record with a mic first to prove that what the subjects are hearing is in fact different.  If you play two mp3 tracks and people say "none sound like the original", then you know people can detect the loss due to compression.  Which is also an argument for buying better equipment to play audio on.  In theory, the more expensive the audio equipment, the more accurate the reproduced audio should be, just like FLAC should be able to reproduce the original audio better than mp3 at any bitrate.  Which is why it's important to listen to the audio equipment in the store first, to make sure you are spending your money in a way that goes with your listening preference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree the test should be " which sounds correct " , not " better " .
They should also test and record with a mic first to prove that what the subjects are hearing is in fact different .
If you play two mp3 tracks and people say " none sound like the original " , then you know people can detect the loss due to compression .
Which is also an argument for buying better equipment to play audio on .
In theory , the more expensive the audio equipment , the more accurate the reproduced audio should be , just like FLAC should be able to reproduce the original audio better than mp3 at any bitrate .
Which is why it 's important to listen to the audio equipment in the store first , to make sure you are spending your money in a way that goes with your listening preference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree the test should be "which sounds correct", not "better".
They should also test and record with a mic first to prove that what the subjects are hearing is in fact different.
If you play two mp3 tracks and people say "none sound like the original", then you know people can detect the loss due to compression.
Which is also an argument for buying better equipment to play audio on.
In theory, the more expensive the audio equipment, the more accurate the reproduced audio should be, just like FLAC should be able to reproduce the original audio better than mp3 at any bitrate.
Which is why it's important to listen to the audio equipment in the store first, to make sure you are spending your money in a way that goes with your listening preference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140278</id>
	<title>Technical question</title>
	<author>beauman</author>
	<datestamp>1258484340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[Quote]Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.[/Quote]



How do install adblock/flashblock for Chromium/Ubuntu?</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Quote ] Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended , lest you be blinded .
[ /Quote ] How do install adblock/flashblock for Chromium/Ubuntu ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Quote]Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.
[/Quote]



How do install adblock/flashblock for Chromium/Ubuntu?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140250</id>
	<title>An aural exercise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258483920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take any modern track and encode it into MP3 in the bitrates 64, 128, 192, 320 kbps.</p><p>I can certainly tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take any modern track and encode it into MP3 in the bitrates 64 , 128 , 192 , 320 kbps.I can certainly tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take any modern track and encode it into MP3 in the bitrates 64, 128, 192, 320 kbps.I can certainly tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139890</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Records might sound better than digital recordings, but only if they strip out the high frequency noise in the recording.</i> <br> <br>
Many self-professed "audiophiles" swear by black vinyl and valve amplifiers for what they call the "warmth" of the sound. I'm in my late 40s, so I'm sure my ears are no longer as sensitive as they were, and I find I would rather hear more detail. I still use my turntable (Rega Planar, with Grado cartridge) from time to time, but I much prefer the CD.<br> <br>
You're right, the main issue with vinyl is that no matter how carefully you look after those recordings, a lot of what you hear sounds like the snap, crackle and pop of breakfast cereal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Records might sound better than digital recordings , but only if they strip out the high frequency noise in the recording .
Many self-professed " audiophiles " swear by black vinyl and valve amplifiers for what they call the " warmth " of the sound .
I 'm in my late 40s , so I 'm sure my ears are no longer as sensitive as they were , and I find I would rather hear more detail .
I still use my turntable ( Rega Planar , with Grado cartridge ) from time to time , but I much prefer the CD .
You 're right , the main issue with vinyl is that no matter how carefully you look after those recordings , a lot of what you hear sounds like the snap , crackle and pop of breakfast cereal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Records might sound better than digital recordings, but only if they strip out the high frequency noise in the recording.
Many self-professed "audiophiles" swear by black vinyl and valve amplifiers for what they call the "warmth" of the sound.
I'm in my late 40s, so I'm sure my ears are no longer as sensitive as they were, and I find I would rather hear more detail.
I still use my turntable (Rega Planar, with Grado cartridge) from time to time, but I much prefer the CD.
You're right, the main issue with vinyl is that no matter how carefully you look after those recordings, a lot of what you hear sounds like the snap, crackle and pop of breakfast cereal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143366</id>
	<title>there is a difference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am hearing impaired to a level I can't explain easily: I can hear my baby cry though it is in another room and I am watching TV on full blast.  On the other side I need to consciuosly hear something, which can take several seconds if I don't know the person.  It's like a cloud which gets clearer with time but often if reveals several alternatives which can be pretty funny - or embarrasing.  And I need to read lips to a certain degree or speak a word or a phrase by myself to determine the right meaning.</p><p>But I hear a difference in most MP3s.  It just sounds incomplete.  And I can hardly understand the lyrics even if I know the song.</p><p>cb</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am hearing impaired to a level I ca n't explain easily : I can hear my baby cry though it is in another room and I am watching TV on full blast .
On the other side I need to consciuosly hear something , which can take several seconds if I do n't know the person .
It 's like a cloud which gets clearer with time but often if reveals several alternatives which can be pretty funny - or embarrasing .
And I need to read lips to a certain degree or speak a word or a phrase by myself to determine the right meaning.But I hear a difference in most MP3s .
It just sounds incomplete .
And I can hardly understand the lyrics even if I know the song.cb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am hearing impaired to a level I can't explain easily: I can hear my baby cry though it is in another room and I am watching TV on full blast.
On the other side I need to consciuosly hear something, which can take several seconds if I don't know the person.
It's like a cloud which gets clearer with time but often if reveals several alternatives which can be pretty funny - or embarrasing.
And I need to read lips to a certain degree or speak a word or a phrase by myself to determine the right meaning.But I hear a difference in most MP3s.
It just sounds incomplete.
And I can hardly understand the lyrics even if I know the song.cb</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141292</id>
	<title>MP3s like vinyl?</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1257071820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could the characteristic sizzle of lossy mp3 encoding be pleasurable to the ears in the same way vinyl has it's distinct pleasing sound?
<br> <br>
Indeed the warmth and softer warmer noise background of a record is that 'vinyl sound' that which fans of the analog format love. It's a result of the limitations of certain frequencies and wave forms a needle in groove can't reproduce too well as well as some of the mastering techniques. MP3s have a squelch, sizzle and smear resulting from compression that should sound much worse than the actual level of sound detail loss indicates, could it be desirable even? Especially with certain instruments? Indeed the algorithm has been designed to fool the human ear, masking the loss, did they accidentally make it sound good?<br> <br>
It seems that people are actually prefering MP3s, partly because thats what they are used to hearing of course, but I think this is because there is a ceratain character to the sound that people may actually like. By my own preferences I can hear the difference between a FLAC and a 160kbps MP3 recording, but I don't hate the loss as much as I should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could the characteristic sizzle of lossy mp3 encoding be pleasurable to the ears in the same way vinyl has it 's distinct pleasing sound ?
Indeed the warmth and softer warmer noise background of a record is that 'vinyl sound ' that which fans of the analog format love .
It 's a result of the limitations of certain frequencies and wave forms a needle in groove ca n't reproduce too well as well as some of the mastering techniques .
MP3s have a squelch , sizzle and smear resulting from compression that should sound much worse than the actual level of sound detail loss indicates , could it be desirable even ?
Especially with certain instruments ?
Indeed the algorithm has been designed to fool the human ear , masking the loss , did they accidentally make it sound good ?
It seems that people are actually prefering MP3s , partly because thats what they are used to hearing of course , but I think this is because there is a ceratain character to the sound that people may actually like .
By my own preferences I can hear the difference between a FLAC and a 160kbps MP3 recording , but I do n't hate the loss as much as I should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could the characteristic sizzle of lossy mp3 encoding be pleasurable to the ears in the same way vinyl has it's distinct pleasing sound?
Indeed the warmth and softer warmer noise background of a record is that 'vinyl sound' that which fans of the analog format love.
It's a result of the limitations of certain frequencies and wave forms a needle in groove can't reproduce too well as well as some of the mastering techniques.
MP3s have a squelch, sizzle and smear resulting from compression that should sound much worse than the actual level of sound detail loss indicates, could it be desirable even?
Especially with certain instruments?
Indeed the algorithm has been designed to fool the human ear, masking the loss, did they accidentally make it sound good?
It seems that people are actually prefering MP3s, partly because thats what they are used to hearing of course, but I think this is because there is a ceratain character to the sound that people may actually like.
By my own preferences I can hear the difference between a FLAC and a 160kbps MP3 recording, but I don't hate the loss as much as I should.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139636</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1258478820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was inclined to agree with you at first - my initial reaction to the inimitable kdawson's comment was "how can you complain about ads on a free ad supported site!?!"</p><p>But then I tried to read TFA.  And it is definitely one of the most ad-heavy sites I have read in recent memory - it's WAY over the top.  Go look at it, and then come back and claim it doesn't deserve ridicule, even by the inimitable kdawson<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was inclined to agree with you at first - my initial reaction to the inimitable kdawson 's comment was " how can you complain about ads on a free ad supported site ! ? !
" But then I tried to read TFA .
And it is definitely one of the most ad-heavy sites I have read in recent memory - it 's WAY over the top .
Go look at it , and then come back and claim it does n't deserve ridicule , even by the inimitable kdawson ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was inclined to agree with you at first - my initial reaction to the inimitable kdawson's comment was "how can you complain about ads on a free ad supported site!?!
"But then I tried to read TFA.
And it is definitely one of the most ad-heavy sites I have read in recent memory - it's WAY over the top.
Go look at it, and then come back and claim it doesn't deserve ridicule, even by the inimitable kdawson ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141856</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257079140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.</p><p>Anything else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.Anything else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.Anything else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145002</id>
	<title>I can tell the difference! Definitely!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a background in high end audio and I am a musician who records his own music. I can even tell the difference between my music recorded at 44.1kHz and 96kHz.  96k is superior, but I haven't experimented with releasing audio in this format, for lack of listeners.  Simply put, no one but me enjoys my music.</p><p>I record in 96K and export at 44.1 to burn to CD. Then I rip the CD to MP3 @ 320kbps. I upload the MP3s to an FTP server and send the link to my friends on facebook or email.  That's usually my last communication with anyone, I seldom hear back any feedback.  For each album, I might get one or two people that says they listened to it. At least my Mom listens.</p><p>I find that I like to take a mix and hear it on a full sized stereo, in the car and on headphones. that gives a good idea of how it sounds across different equipment.  The home theater stereo seems to really process the sound and add distortion by artificially boosting the bass.</p><p>I like listening to my own stuff and learning, honing the production technique.  I would share here, but the lack of feedback gets very disappointing; you put some effort into something you're excited about, then you release it and no one hears it, or maybe if they did, it didn't excite them, so it's easier to just keep it on the down low and be happy that at least I enjoy it.</p><p>It's great to have the MP3s online so I can listen to my stuff where ever I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a background in high end audio and I am a musician who records his own music .
I can even tell the difference between my music recorded at 44.1kHz and 96kHz .
96k is superior , but I have n't experimented with releasing audio in this format , for lack of listeners .
Simply put , no one but me enjoys my music.I record in 96K and export at 44.1 to burn to CD .
Then I rip the CD to MP3 @ 320kbps .
I upload the MP3s to an FTP server and send the link to my friends on facebook or email .
That 's usually my last communication with anyone , I seldom hear back any feedback .
For each album , I might get one or two people that says they listened to it .
At least my Mom listens.I find that I like to take a mix and hear it on a full sized stereo , in the car and on headphones .
that gives a good idea of how it sounds across different equipment .
The home theater stereo seems to really process the sound and add distortion by artificially boosting the bass.I like listening to my own stuff and learning , honing the production technique .
I would share here , but the lack of feedback gets very disappointing ; you put some effort into something you 're excited about , then you release it and no one hears it , or maybe if they did , it did n't excite them , so it 's easier to just keep it on the down low and be happy that at least I enjoy it.It 's great to have the MP3s online so I can listen to my stuff where ever I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a background in high end audio and I am a musician who records his own music.
I can even tell the difference between my music recorded at 44.1kHz and 96kHz.
96k is superior, but I haven't experimented with releasing audio in this format, for lack of listeners.
Simply put, no one but me enjoys my music.I record in 96K and export at 44.1 to burn to CD.
Then I rip the CD to MP3 @ 320kbps.
I upload the MP3s to an FTP server and send the link to my friends on facebook or email.
That's usually my last communication with anyone, I seldom hear back any feedback.
For each album, I might get one or two people that says they listened to it.
At least my Mom listens.I find that I like to take a mix and hear it on a full sized stereo, in the car and on headphones.
that gives a good idea of how it sounds across different equipment.
The home theater stereo seems to really process the sound and add distortion by artificially boosting the bass.I like listening to my own stuff and learning, honing the production technique.
I would share here, but the lack of feedback gets very disappointing; you put some effort into something you're excited about, then you release it and no one hears it, or maybe if they did, it didn't excite them, so it's easier to just keep it on the down low and be happy that at least I enjoy it.It's great to have the MP3s online so I can listen to my stuff where ever I am.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30153404</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1257101940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest. With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.</em> </p><p>That doesn't matter. The reconstructed signal will be interpolated in some way. Whether you get a square wave, sine wave, or triangle wave is completely in the hands of the DAC. Obviously, the correct choice is to interpolate a sine wave, since any other choice would involve the introduction of higher frequencies. Or, to put it another way, if you actually tried to sample a 15 khz triangle wave you would end up with aliasing, because a triangle wave has overtones and some non-zero quantity of signal energy will fall outside of the Nyquist range. This is basic DSP shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest .
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave , a square wave , or a sawtooth wave ; all will sound exactly the same .
That does n't matter .
The reconstructed signal will be interpolated in some way .
Whether you get a square wave , sine wave , or triangle wave is completely in the hands of the DAC .
Obviously , the correct choice is to interpolate a sine wave , since any other choice would involve the introduction of higher frequencies .
Or , to put it another way , if you actually tried to sample a 15 khz triangle wave you would end up with aliasing , because a triangle wave has overtones and some non-zero quantity of signal energy will fall outside of the Nyquist range .
This is basic DSP shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest.
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.
That doesn't matter.
The reconstructed signal will be interpolated in some way.
Whether you get a square wave, sine wave, or triangle wave is completely in the hands of the DAC.
Obviously, the correct choice is to interpolate a sine wave, since any other choice would involve the introduction of higher frequencies.
Or, to put it another way, if you actually tried to sample a 15 khz triangle wave you would end up with aliasing, because a triangle wave has overtones and some non-zero quantity of signal energy will fall outside of the Nyquist range.
This is basic DSP shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141980</id>
	<title>I listen mostly to ogg and I can tell</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1257080700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There definitely is a difference in sound quality.
MP3 is really bad at encoding cymbal sounds at 128kbps- they sound 'watery'. Because of this one artefact, I can tell every time when an 128 kbps audio track I'm listening to is an mp3 or an ogg. That's with cheap headphones in an office environment.

The differences get less noticeable at higher rates though. I won't go as far as claiming that I can hear the difference between a lossy ogg and lossless FLAC.

Does it matter? Depends on the circumstances. In the car I probably couldn't care less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There definitely is a difference in sound quality .
MP3 is really bad at encoding cymbal sounds at 128kbps- they sound 'watery' .
Because of this one artefact , I can tell every time when an 128 kbps audio track I 'm listening to is an mp3 or an ogg .
That 's with cheap headphones in an office environment .
The differences get less noticeable at higher rates though .
I wo n't go as far as claiming that I can hear the difference between a lossy ogg and lossless FLAC .
Does it matter ?
Depends on the circumstances .
In the car I probably could n't care less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There definitely is a difference in sound quality.
MP3 is really bad at encoding cymbal sounds at 128kbps- they sound 'watery'.
Because of this one artefact, I can tell every time when an 128 kbps audio track I'm listening to is an mp3 or an ogg.
That's with cheap headphones in an office environment.
The differences get less noticeable at higher rates though.
I won't go as far as claiming that I can hear the difference between a lossy ogg and lossless FLAC.
Does it matter?
Depends on the circumstances.
In the car I probably couldn't care less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141734</id>
	<title>AKA mp3 works</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1257077400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Everyone knows that lossless codecs like FLAC produce better sounding music than lossy codecs like MP3. Well that's the theory anyway. The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC.</p><p>I think you have described the whole purpose of MP3 !!<br>(i.e. for most of the people, most of the time it is good enough, however the file is much smaller !)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Everyone knows that lossless codecs like FLAC produce better sounding music than lossy codecs like MP3 .
Well that 's the theory anyway .
The reality is that most of us ca n't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC.I think you have described the whole purpose of MP3 ! ! ( i.e .
for most of the people , most of the time it is good enough , however the file is much smaller !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Everyone knows that lossless codecs like FLAC produce better sounding music than lossy codecs like MP3.
Well that's the theory anyway.
The reality is that most of us can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC.I think you have described the whole purpose of MP3 !!(i.e.
for most of the people, most of the time it is good enough, however the file is much smaller !
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144068</id>
	<title>Re:Misses part of the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put another way, lossless is the only way to get a true, bit-for-bit identical <i>archive</i> of your music.</p><p>That said, if you have a 200GB flac collection sitting on your hard drive like I do, and your computer doubles as your jukebox like mine does, then it makes sense to play straight off the flacs. If you want to copy some music to your mp3 player, simply convert it and go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put another way , lossless is the only way to get a true , bit-for-bit identical archive of your music.That said , if you have a 200GB flac collection sitting on your hard drive like I do , and your computer doubles as your jukebox like mine does , then it makes sense to play straight off the flacs .
If you want to copy some music to your mp3 player , simply convert it and go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put another way, lossless is the only way to get a true, bit-for-bit identical archive of your music.That said, if you have a 200GB flac collection sitting on your hard drive like I do, and your computer doubles as your jukebox like mine does, then it makes sense to play straight off the flacs.
If you want to copy some music to your mp3 player, simply convert it and go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142106</id>
	<title>Isnt that the point of MP3?</title>
	<author>gatkinso</author>
	<datestamp>1257082200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eliminate the stuff which most of us can't hear?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eliminate the stuff which most of us ca n't hear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eliminate the stuff which most of us can't hear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139652</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1258478940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why my entire CD collection has been ripped into my computer using 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC encoding--unlike MP3 encoding, AAC encoding has excellent sound quality at this encoding rate with very quiet background noise level. While in the past using AAC encoding could be a disadvantage, given that most of today's higher-end portable music players support AAC files, I'm sticking with AAC encoding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why my entire CD collection has been ripped into my computer using 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC encoding--unlike MP3 encoding , AAC encoding has excellent sound quality at this encoding rate with very quiet background noise level .
While in the past using AAC encoding could be a disadvantage , given that most of today 's higher-end portable music players support AAC files , I 'm sticking with AAC encoding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why my entire CD collection has been ripped into my computer using 256 kbps variable bit rate AAC encoding--unlike MP3 encoding, AAC encoding has excellent sound quality at this encoding rate with very quiet background noise level.
While in the past using AAC encoding could be a disadvantage, given that most of today's higher-end portable music players support AAC files, I'm sticking with AAC encoding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139480</id>
	<title>I Can</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1258477620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just listened to some Grateful Dead archives remastered by some of the highest end audiophile collectors and audio engineers that also had some specially generated MP3 versions. The two were easily different.</p><p>Even through 5 year old $50 5.1 PC speakers. Through the motherboard codec of a 5 year old PC.</p><p>Maybe because I actually know the difference between good and bad audio quality. Because I care enough to do what it takes to get the good stuff. Most people don't know, maybe because they don't care.</p><p>Most people also can't tell the difference between the computer science blather they see in science fiction shows and what they'd have to deal with in an actual geek argument.</p><p>Who cares what they think? Let them settle for crap. I want the good stuff. It's too late for me to pretend I can't tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just listened to some Grateful Dead archives remastered by some of the highest end audiophile collectors and audio engineers that also had some specially generated MP3 versions .
The two were easily different.Even through 5 year old $ 50 5.1 PC speakers .
Through the motherboard codec of a 5 year old PC.Maybe because I actually know the difference between good and bad audio quality .
Because I care enough to do what it takes to get the good stuff .
Most people do n't know , maybe because they do n't care.Most people also ca n't tell the difference between the computer science blather they see in science fiction shows and what they 'd have to deal with in an actual geek argument.Who cares what they think ?
Let them settle for crap .
I want the good stuff .
It 's too late for me to pretend I ca n't tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just listened to some Grateful Dead archives remastered by some of the highest end audiophile collectors and audio engineers that also had some specially generated MP3 versions.
The two were easily different.Even through 5 year old $50 5.1 PC speakers.
Through the motherboard codec of a 5 year old PC.Maybe because I actually know the difference between good and bad audio quality.
Because I care enough to do what it takes to get the good stuff.
Most people don't know, maybe because they don't care.Most people also can't tell the difference between the computer science blather they see in science fiction shows and what they'd have to deal with in an actual geek argument.Who cares what they think?
Let them settle for crap.
I want the good stuff.
It's too late for me to pretend I can't tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142566</id>
	<title>Re:It does depend on the recording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At 320kbps you are pretty close to the size that FLAC compression would produce, so at that point you might as well go lossless even if you can't tell the difference (at least you could get back to wave files that way).  Also you may not have "tin ears," because I've found it takes thousands of dollars of audio equipment to tell the difference at 192kbps.  However, any true audio file will say do what you think sounds good (even if it happens to be the tape deck in your car), it is only the snobby ones who are douche bags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 320kbps you are pretty close to the size that FLAC compression would produce , so at that point you might as well go lossless even if you ca n't tell the difference ( at least you could get back to wave files that way ) .
Also you may not have " tin ears , " because I 've found it takes thousands of dollars of audio equipment to tell the difference at 192kbps .
However , any true audio file will say do what you think sounds good ( even if it happens to be the tape deck in your car ) , it is only the snobby ones who are douche bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 320kbps you are pretty close to the size that FLAC compression would produce, so at that point you might as well go lossless even if you can't tell the difference (at least you could get back to wave files that way).
Also you may not have "tin ears," because I've found it takes thousands of dollars of audio equipment to tell the difference at 192kbps.
However, any true audio file will say do what you think sounds good (even if it happens to be the tape deck in your car), it is only the snobby ones who are douche bags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140508</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>thuerrsch</author>
	<datestamp>1258486740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in flac format I could store more like $60,000 worth<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but who has a $20,000 CD collection let alone a $60,000 one?</p></div><p>
Some people think that sometimes a single song can be <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/06/18/227219/In-Round-2-Jammie-Thomas-Jury-Awards-RIAA-1920000?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">"worth"</a> [slashdot.org] more than that. Put differently, the cost of buying a certain number of CDs has almost nothing to do with their value. Just try selling your precious CD collection on eBay, and you'll realize that.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in flac format I could store more like $ 60,000 worth ... but who has a $ 20,000 CD collection let alone a $ 60,000 one ?
Some people think that sometimes a single song can be " worth " [ slashdot.org ] more than that .
Put differently , the cost of buying a certain number of CDs has almost nothing to do with their value .
Just try selling your precious CD collection on eBay , and you 'll realize that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in flac format I could store more like $60,000 worth ... but who has a $20,000 CD collection let alone a $60,000 one?
Some people think that sometimes a single song can be "worth" [slashdot.org] more than that.
Put differently, the cost of buying a certain number of CDs has almost nothing to do with their value.
Just try selling your precious CD collection on eBay, and you'll realize that.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141556</id>
	<title>Bull test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257075540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will people realize that it depends on the type of music you compress whether you can hear artifacts or not? You need mustic with lots of overtones and/or noise to pick it out most easily. Classical music, or distorted guitars coupled with cymbals in rock music, etc. are where artefacts appear most clearly. Relatively clean waveforms such as found in most modern dance music are not.</p><p>And, yes, lossy codecs improve to the point where it becomes harder and harder to distinguish them from lossless codecs. I'm not claiming that's not the case. I just think if you bother to test anything like that, pick music that would actually show the differenes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will people realize that it depends on the type of music you compress whether you can hear artifacts or not ?
You need mustic with lots of overtones and/or noise to pick it out most easily .
Classical music , or distorted guitars coupled with cymbals in rock music , etc .
are where artefacts appear most clearly .
Relatively clean waveforms such as found in most modern dance music are not.And , yes , lossy codecs improve to the point where it becomes harder and harder to distinguish them from lossless codecs .
I 'm not claiming that 's not the case .
I just think if you bother to test anything like that , pick music that would actually show the differenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will people realize that it depends on the type of music you compress whether you can hear artifacts or not?
You need mustic with lots of overtones and/or noise to pick it out most easily.
Classical music, or distorted guitars coupled with cymbals in rock music, etc.
are where artefacts appear most clearly.
Relatively clean waveforms such as found in most modern dance music are not.And, yes, lossy codecs improve to the point where it becomes harder and harder to distinguish them from lossless codecs.
I'm not claiming that's not the case.
I just think if you bother to test anything like that, pick music that would actually show the differenes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146914</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1257104460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should mention RIAA equalization, too. Much of the reason you get bass at all on LPs is because, before a perfectly reasonable audio signal is put on an LP, it run through RIAA "pre-emphasis". This cuts bass at 20Hz by 20dB, and boosts treble at 20kHz by 20dB (there's a detailed curve one must follow ). When you play it back, you boost the lows and cut the highs. This keeps the grooves small enough on the LP to allow it to carry its required 22min or so per side, and cuts down on high frequency hiss<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... effectively dropping hiss by up to 20dB. Same basic principle as Dolby Noise reduction, in fact. This technique was invented in the mid 1920s at Bell Laboratories.</p><p>This was originally an ad-hoc thing, but eventually standardized by the RIAA (and you thought they just sued 13-year-olds for downloading MP3s). A few early CDs were put on disc with the RIAA pre-emphasis applied, and naturally, there was no de-emphasis on playback -- they sounded horrible. Part of the mad rush to get material on CD.. eventually people actually started listening to the masters before they went on disc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should mention RIAA equalization , too .
Much of the reason you get bass at all on LPs is because , before a perfectly reasonable audio signal is put on an LP , it run through RIAA " pre-emphasis " .
This cuts bass at 20Hz by 20dB , and boosts treble at 20kHz by 20dB ( there 's a detailed curve one must follow ) .
When you play it back , you boost the lows and cut the highs .
This keeps the grooves small enough on the LP to allow it to carry its required 22min or so per side , and cuts down on high frequency hiss ... effectively dropping hiss by up to 20dB .
Same basic principle as Dolby Noise reduction , in fact .
This technique was invented in the mid 1920s at Bell Laboratories.This was originally an ad-hoc thing , but eventually standardized by the RIAA ( and you thought they just sued 13-year-olds for downloading MP3s ) .
A few early CDs were put on disc with the RIAA pre-emphasis applied , and naturally , there was no de-emphasis on playback -- they sounded horrible .
Part of the mad rush to get material on CD.. eventually people actually started listening to the masters before they went on disc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should mention RIAA equalization, too.
Much of the reason you get bass at all on LPs is because, before a perfectly reasonable audio signal is put on an LP, it run through RIAA "pre-emphasis".
This cuts bass at 20Hz by 20dB, and boosts treble at 20kHz by 20dB (there's a detailed curve one must follow ).
When you play it back, you boost the lows and cut the highs.
This keeps the grooves small enough on the LP to allow it to carry its required 22min or so per side, and cuts down on high frequency hiss ... effectively dropping hiss by up to 20dB.
Same basic principle as Dolby Noise reduction, in fact.
This technique was invented in the mid 1920s at Bell Laboratories.This was originally an ad-hoc thing, but eventually standardized by the RIAA (and you thought they just sued 13-year-olds for downloading MP3s).
A few early CDs were put on disc with the RIAA pre-emphasis applied, and naturally, there was no de-emphasis on playback -- they sounded horrible.
Part of the mad rush to get material on CD.. eventually people actually started listening to the masters before they went on disc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142524</id>
	<title>All of mine is at 128.</title>
	<author>Blimey85</author>
	<datestamp>1257086040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually recode all of my downloaded tracks to 128k mp3 files to save space. My ears really don't hear a difference between this and the original files most of the time and it saves a lot of disk space. I have 43,000 songs in my library and as it is they take up quite a bit of space. Plus I stream my library to my iPhone and with the lower bit rate that works better. I'm sure at some point I'll probably wish I had higher quality files but I started this collection years ago and so far it's worked just fine for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually recode all of my downloaded tracks to 128k mp3 files to save space .
My ears really do n't hear a difference between this and the original files most of the time and it saves a lot of disk space .
I have 43,000 songs in my library and as it is they take up quite a bit of space .
Plus I stream my library to my iPhone and with the lower bit rate that works better .
I 'm sure at some point I 'll probably wish I had higher quality files but I started this collection years ago and so far it 's worked just fine for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually recode all of my downloaded tracks to 128k mp3 files to save space.
My ears really don't hear a difference between this and the original files most of the time and it saves a lot of disk space.
I have 43,000 songs in my library and as it is they take up quite a bit of space.
Plus I stream my library to my iPhone and with the lower bit rate that works better.
I'm sure at some point I'll probably wish I had higher quality files but I started this collection years ago and so far it's worked just fine for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148570</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1257069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thick</i></p><p>The reason for gold plating is that it doesn't corrode. The gold plating on plugs and jacks (indeed it would be worthless on the cables themselves) is like the paint on your car -- sand that paint off and you'll have holes in no time. With plugs and jacks the corrosion weakens the conduction, and results in loud annoying noise. Of course, you're better off just buying $5 cables and replacing them when you hear the noise.</p><p>The EQ is only needed for vinyl. The reason is that vinyl is recorded with the bass attenuated and treble accented so you can have low (even subsonic) tones without the needle jumping out of the groove, and the EQ accents the bass and attenuates the treble an equal amount, resulting in the original waveform. It's very similar to how Dolby works with analog tape, only in reverse; treble is accented and bass is attenuated, and when the treble is attenuated on playback, so is the hiss.</p><p><i>So the moral of the story is.... Spend the biggest portion of your audio budget on 1. The Speakers and 2. The sound source component, if you listen to vinyl, spend it on the best turntable and cartridge you can afford</i></p><p>That's exactly correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thickThe reason for gold plating is that it does n't corrode .
The gold plating on plugs and jacks ( indeed it would be worthless on the cables themselves ) is like the paint on your car -- sand that paint off and you 'll have holes in no time .
With plugs and jacks the corrosion weakens the conduction , and results in loud annoying noise .
Of course , you 're better off just buying $ 5 cables and replacing them when you hear the noise.The EQ is only needed for vinyl .
The reason is that vinyl is recorded with the bass attenuated and treble accented so you can have low ( even subsonic ) tones without the needle jumping out of the groove , and the EQ accents the bass and attenuates the treble an equal amount , resulting in the original waveform .
It 's very similar to how Dolby works with analog tape , only in reverse ; treble is accented and bass is attenuated , and when the treble is attenuated on playback , so is the hiss.So the moral of the story is.... Spend the biggest portion of your audio budget on 1 .
The Speakers and 2 .
The sound source component , if you listen to vinyl , spend it on the best turntable and cartridge you can affordThat 's exactly correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gold is plated and only a couple or angstroms thickThe reason for gold plating is that it doesn't corrode.
The gold plating on plugs and jacks (indeed it would be worthless on the cables themselves) is like the paint on your car -- sand that paint off and you'll have holes in no time.
With plugs and jacks the corrosion weakens the conduction, and results in loud annoying noise.
Of course, you're better off just buying $5 cables and replacing them when you hear the noise.The EQ is only needed for vinyl.
The reason is that vinyl is recorded with the bass attenuated and treble accented so you can have low (even subsonic) tones without the needle jumping out of the groove, and the EQ accents the bass and attenuates the treble an equal amount, resulting in the original waveform.
It's very similar to how Dolby works with analog tape, only in reverse; treble is accented and bass is attenuated, and when the treble is attenuated on playback, so is the hiss.So the moral of the story is.... Spend the biggest portion of your audio budget on 1.
The Speakers and 2.
The sound source component, if you listen to vinyl, spend it on the best turntable and cartridge you can affordThat's exactly correct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142342</id>
	<title>Why the fuss??</title>
	<author>croftj</author>
	<datestamp>1257084660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's it to you if I think I can hear the difference when you think I can't. Maybe I can hear the difference, maybe I can't. It's a personal thing and if I preffer listening to flac or 'pure' music or iof I want to hear crap played from out of a tin can, it really shouldn't make diddly squate difference to you! SO GET OUT OF MY EAR SPACE!</p><p>On another train of thought...</p><p>If you want to manipulate the music and say put it in another format, up the bass whatever and save it again, you really need to work with the lossless formats. Then if you must lower it to MP3 to save space, cheep hard drives makes that need a little less. Of course, on your IPOD or other little device with your cheasy headphones, you might as well go to some quality 4 bit recording format and really spave space. You won't hear the difference once the earbuds are done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's it to you if I think I can hear the difference when you think I ca n't .
Maybe I can hear the difference , maybe I ca n't .
It 's a personal thing and if I preffer listening to flac or 'pure ' music or iof I want to hear crap played from out of a tin can , it really should n't make diddly squate difference to you !
SO GET OUT OF MY EAR SPACE ! On another train of thought...If you want to manipulate the music and say put it in another format , up the bass whatever and save it again , you really need to work with the lossless formats .
Then if you must lower it to MP3 to save space , cheep hard drives makes that need a little less .
Of course , on your IPOD or other little device with your cheasy headphones , you might as well go to some quality 4 bit recording format and really spave space .
You wo n't hear the difference once the earbuds are done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's it to you if I think I can hear the difference when you think I can't.
Maybe I can hear the difference, maybe I can't.
It's a personal thing and if I preffer listening to flac or 'pure' music or iof I want to hear crap played from out of a tin can, it really shouldn't make diddly squate difference to you!
SO GET OUT OF MY EAR SPACE!On another train of thought...If you want to manipulate the music and say put it in another format, up the bass whatever and save it again, you really need to work with the lossless formats.
Then if you must lower it to MP3 to save space, cheep hard drives makes that need a little less.
Of course, on your IPOD or other little device with your cheasy headphones, you might as well go to some quality 4 bit recording format and really spave space.
You won't hear the difference once the earbuds are done with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139054</id>
	<title>Normalization could be it.</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1258474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's of my understanding that when you rip CDs to WAV or FLAC, you don't have an option to normalize your audio like you do with MP3s. It's not that you can't, rather the option is not available on most programs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's of my understanding that when you rip CDs to WAV or FLAC , you do n't have an option to normalize your audio like you do with MP3s .
It 's not that you ca n't , rather the option is not available on most programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's of my understanding that when you rip CDs to WAV or FLAC, you don't have an option to normalize your audio like you do with MP3s.
It's not that you can't, rather the option is not available on most programs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139250</id>
	<title>Dunno about the exact formats but...</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1258475880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno about FLAC and mp3, but to get an idea what difference the sound quality can make, try this at a both standard and high quality using a good set of headphones:</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqc8JNzniUc" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqc8JNzniUc</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>I don't dare speculate where the cutoff in what we can notice is, and it likely is not the same for everybody, but there's certainly some music tracks where the difference between different levels of lossy compression is quite clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about FLAC and mp3 , but to get an idea what difference the sound quality can make , try this at a both standard and high quality using a good set of headphones : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Dqc8JNzniUc [ youtube.com ] I do n't dare speculate where the cutoff in what we can notice is , and it likely is not the same for everybody , but there 's certainly some music tracks where the difference between different levels of lossy compression is quite clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about FLAC and mp3, but to get an idea what difference the sound quality can make, try this at a both standard and high quality using a good set of headphones:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqc8JNzniUc [youtube.com]I don't dare speculate where the cutoff in what we can notice is, and it likely is not the same for everybody, but there's certainly some music tracks where the difference between different levels of lossy compression is quite clear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30164386</id>
	<title>This sums up the entire article:</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1258628100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this quote sums up the entire article:<p><div class="quote"><p>The only person to get all four tracks right is someone who listens to their headphones at pitifully low volumes and hasn't attended any rock concerts. We can think of two explanations. One, the subject has particularly sensitive ears, so doesn't need to turn the volume up high. Two, the subject hasn't wrecked their hearing through years of listening to a walkman/MP3 player at high volumes and/or seeing Motorhead at the Hammersmith Odeon. Arguably, both apply.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this quote sums up the entire article : The only person to get all four tracks right is someone who listens to their headphones at pitifully low volumes and has n't attended any rock concerts .
We can think of two explanations .
One , the subject has particularly sensitive ears , so does n't need to turn the volume up high .
Two , the subject has n't wrecked their hearing through years of listening to a walkman/MP3 player at high volumes and/or seeing Motorhead at the Hammersmith Odeon .
Arguably , both apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this quote sums up the entire article:The only person to get all four tracks right is someone who listens to their headphones at pitifully low volumes and hasn't attended any rock concerts.
We can think of two explanations.
One, the subject has particularly sensitive ears, so doesn't need to turn the volume up high.
Two, the subject hasn't wrecked their hearing through years of listening to a walkman/MP3 player at high volumes and/or seeing Motorhead at the Hammersmith Odeon.
Arguably, both apply. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145460</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>TheSockMan</author>
	<datestamp>1257098460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are you talking about? You are seriously misleading people with incorrect technical jargon. What does a sequencer have to do with highs being filtered out? You could run an un edited song through a low pass filter and have it never touch a sequencer. In fact, there is a great deal of rock music (By which I mean music that is not electronic) which never, ever touches a sequencer.

And to say that an entire genre doesn't suffer from lossy formats?? Really? They may be less susceptible but there is a great deal of electronic music which will sound just as bad or worse then the Police lossy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
You are seriously misleading people with incorrect technical jargon .
What does a sequencer have to do with highs being filtered out ?
You could run an un edited song through a low pass filter and have it never touch a sequencer .
In fact , there is a great deal of rock music ( By which I mean music that is not electronic ) which never , ever touches a sequencer .
And to say that an entire genre does n't suffer from lossy formats ? ?
Really ? They may be less susceptible but there is a great deal of electronic music which will sound just as bad or worse then the Police lossy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
You are seriously misleading people with incorrect technical jargon.
What does a sequencer have to do with highs being filtered out?
You could run an un edited song through a low pass filter and have it never touch a sequencer.
In fact, there is a great deal of rock music (By which I mean music that is not electronic) which never, ever touches a sequencer.
And to say that an entire genre doesn't suffer from lossy formats??
Really? They may be less susceptible but there is a great deal of electronic music which will sound just as bad or worse then the Police lossy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146404</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1257102300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that's an important point -- re-encoding. The device you started out with might be MP3, but most folks change devices more often than they re-rip entire CD collections. I started out with MP3 players. I had an iPod once (it was a gift) that could handle AAC, which certainly has a higher coding efficiency that MP3, so (particularly on a 10GB device) you want the AAC. Then it was a Zune (30GB for $75 was a good deal, and the brown matches my guitar, so I don't want to hear it), and more recently, a DROID, which can play OGG as well as MP3 and AAC.</p><p>The one thing I liked about the Zune software... you could let the sync program worry about re-coding whatever you had on HDD for device use. Typically, the device quality is limited by my environment, by ear-buds rather than studio headphones, and by the device itself (particularly that iPod...). So no need for FLAC on the device, yet. Why not encode your audio for the device being used, today.</p><p>Only, with lossy compression, you run the risk of greatly reduced sound quality. It was a factor, in early compression algorithms, that they suffered significant generational loss. Early Sony MD players suffered really noticable loss after a few generations (later ATRAC encoders could do dozens without noticable loss). But that's accelerated when you mix and match psychoaccoustic models. So you may find that 64K AAC file made from a 256K OGG or MP3 file is dramatically lower quality than, say, a 64K AAC file made from a 256K AAC file. Keeping around uncompressed audio, no issue here... each transcoding will sound as good as if ripped directly from the original CD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that 's an important point -- re-encoding .
The device you started out with might be MP3 , but most folks change devices more often than they re-rip entire CD collections .
I started out with MP3 players .
I had an iPod once ( it was a gift ) that could handle AAC , which certainly has a higher coding efficiency that MP3 , so ( particularly on a 10GB device ) you want the AAC .
Then it was a Zune ( 30GB for $ 75 was a good deal , and the brown matches my guitar , so I do n't want to hear it ) , and more recently , a DROID , which can play OGG as well as MP3 and AAC.The one thing I liked about the Zune software... you could let the sync program worry about re-coding whatever you had on HDD for device use .
Typically , the device quality is limited by my environment , by ear-buds rather than studio headphones , and by the device itself ( particularly that iPod... ) .
So no need for FLAC on the device , yet .
Why not encode your audio for the device being used , today.Only , with lossy compression , you run the risk of greatly reduced sound quality .
It was a factor , in early compression algorithms , that they suffered significant generational loss .
Early Sony MD players suffered really noticable loss after a few generations ( later ATRAC encoders could do dozens without noticable loss ) .
But that 's accelerated when you mix and match psychoaccoustic models .
So you may find that 64K AAC file made from a 256K OGG or MP3 file is dramatically lower quality than , say , a 64K AAC file made from a 256K AAC file .
Keeping around uncompressed audio , no issue here... each transcoding will sound as good as if ripped directly from the original CD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that's an important point -- re-encoding.
The device you started out with might be MP3, but most folks change devices more often than they re-rip entire CD collections.
I started out with MP3 players.
I had an iPod once (it was a gift) that could handle AAC, which certainly has a higher coding efficiency that MP3, so (particularly on a 10GB device) you want the AAC.
Then it was a Zune (30GB for $75 was a good deal, and the brown matches my guitar, so I don't want to hear it), and more recently, a DROID, which can play OGG as well as MP3 and AAC.The one thing I liked about the Zune software... you could let the sync program worry about re-coding whatever you had on HDD for device use.
Typically, the device quality is limited by my environment, by ear-buds rather than studio headphones, and by the device itself (particularly that iPod...).
So no need for FLAC on the device, yet.
Why not encode your audio for the device being used, today.Only, with lossy compression, you run the risk of greatly reduced sound quality.
It was a factor, in early compression algorithms, that they suffered significant generational loss.
Early Sony MD players suffered really noticable loss after a few generations (later ATRAC encoders could do dozens without noticable loss).
But that's accelerated when you mix and match psychoaccoustic models.
So you may find that 64K AAC file made from a 256K OGG or MP3 file is dramatically lower quality than, say, a 64K AAC file made from a 256K AAC file.
Keeping around uncompressed audio, no issue here... each transcoding will sound as good as if ripped directly from the original CD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310</id>
	<title>Recording Bias</title>
	<author>Afforess</author>
	<datestamp>1258476360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people are used to the slight hiss or static that comes with MP3's. In fact, we have lived with it so long, we believe it's normal. It's a form of bias, where most people are used to the sound of MP3's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are used to the slight hiss or static that comes with MP3 's .
In fact , we have lived with it so long , we believe it 's normal .
It 's a form of bias , where most people are used to the sound of MP3 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are used to the slight hiss or static that comes with MP3's.
In fact, we have lived with it so long, we believe it's normal.
It's a form of bias, where most people are used to the sound of MP3's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144874</id>
	<title>Subjectivity</title>
	<author>orangedan</author>
	<datestamp>1257096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Music is art and art is subjective.  Let's all just stop arguing and listen to what we think sounds best.  If I like my speaker system or 120$ headphones, and you're fine with 5$ earbuds, that's okay too.  Let's spend more time enjoying our music, in whatever way is best for each of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music is art and art is subjective .
Let 's all just stop arguing and listen to what we think sounds best .
If I like my speaker system or 120 $ headphones , and you 're fine with 5 $ earbuds , that 's okay too .
Let 's spend more time enjoying our music , in whatever way is best for each of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music is art and art is subjective.
Let's all just stop arguing and listen to what we think sounds best.
If I like my speaker system or 120$ headphones, and you're fine with 5$ earbuds, that's okay too.
Let's spend more time enjoying our music, in whatever way is best for each of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139258</id>
	<title>Probably irrelevant for fans of lossless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought this was pretty much common knowledge, but regardless, it has no impact on what seems to be the primary argument for lossless codecs: storage space is practically free and transcoding introduces extra loss, so we should keep lossless copies so that we can use cool new codecs without quality loss. (Of course, bandwidth is definitely not practically free, so I've never agreed with this view, but it's still the pro-lossless stance I've seen the most).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought this was pretty much common knowledge , but regardless , it has no impact on what seems to be the primary argument for lossless codecs : storage space is practically free and transcoding introduces extra loss , so we should keep lossless copies so that we can use cool new codecs without quality loss .
( Of course , bandwidth is definitely not practically free , so I 've never agreed with this view , but it 's still the pro-lossless stance I 've seen the most ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought this was pretty much common knowledge, but regardless, it has no impact on what seems to be the primary argument for lossless codecs: storage space is practically free and transcoding introduces extra loss, so we should keep lossless copies so that we can use cool new codecs without quality loss.
(Of course, bandwidth is definitely not practically free, so I've never agreed with this view, but it's still the pro-lossless stance I've seen the most).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139284</id>
	<title>Irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people can hear differences even between 320CBR mp3 and flac. I have myself, even when not expecting to. It can happen depending on the style of music.</p><p>But that's irrelevant.</p><p>flac is future proofed, at least to the point of cd quality audio. Additionally, flac's tagging is far and away better than mp3. Myself, it's flac for the archive and convert to mp3 for the portable player, on account of hardware acceleration, and thus battery life.</p><p>Now can we please stop treating flac users like they're crazy? Some people like it for the long term benefits. Some people like not having to wonder if they're missing anything from the otherwise cd quality level. With flac, you don't have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people can hear differences even between 320CBR mp3 and flac .
I have myself , even when not expecting to .
It can happen depending on the style of music.But that 's irrelevant.flac is future proofed , at least to the point of cd quality audio .
Additionally , flac 's tagging is far and away better than mp3 .
Myself , it 's flac for the archive and convert to mp3 for the portable player , on account of hardware acceleration , and thus battery life.Now can we please stop treating flac users like they 're crazy ?
Some people like it for the long term benefits .
Some people like not having to wonder if they 're missing anything from the otherwise cd quality level .
With flac , you do n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people can hear differences even between 320CBR mp3 and flac.
I have myself, even when not expecting to.
It can happen depending on the style of music.But that's irrelevant.flac is future proofed, at least to the point of cd quality audio.
Additionally, flac's tagging is far and away better than mp3.
Myself, it's flac for the archive and convert to mp3 for the portable player, on account of hardware acceleration, and thus battery life.Now can we please stop treating flac users like they're crazy?
Some people like it for the long term benefits.
Some people like not having to wonder if they're missing anything from the otherwise cd quality level.
With flac, you don't have to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143082</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1257089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You put cymbals and bells in the same category here for anything below 256 Kbps</p><p>I don't mean to be rude, but try the ABX test - you need to learn a few things.</p><p>Stewart Copeland is one of the best at expression above 10Khz, even at 224 Kbps, its all there.</p><p>At 192Kbps, his expression is still all there, but you may feel the sound being a little flat and lacking particular directionality, like he is playing inside a giant bubble and you are positioned outside.</p><p>Even then at 192, I can only feel it occasionally and I would fail the ABX test most of the time.</p><p>Above 192, and the DAC, the PreAmp , the signal path and the transducers are going to combine in a way that colors the sound much more than increasing the bitrate alone can overcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You put cymbals and bells in the same category here for anything below 256 KbpsI do n't mean to be rude , but try the ABX test - you need to learn a few things.Stewart Copeland is one of the best at expression above 10Khz , even at 224 Kbps , its all there.At 192Kbps , his expression is still all there , but you may feel the sound being a little flat and lacking particular directionality , like he is playing inside a giant bubble and you are positioned outside.Even then at 192 , I can only feel it occasionally and I would fail the ABX test most of the time.Above 192 , and the DAC , the PreAmp , the signal path and the transducers are going to combine in a way that colors the sound much more than increasing the bitrate alone can overcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You put cymbals and bells in the same category here for anything below 256 KbpsI don't mean to be rude, but try the ABX test - you need to learn a few things.Stewart Copeland is one of the best at expression above 10Khz, even at 224 Kbps, its all there.At 192Kbps, his expression is still all there, but you may feel the sound being a little flat and lacking particular directionality, like he is playing inside a giant bubble and you are positioned outside.Even then at 192, I can only feel it occasionally and I would fail the ABX test most of the time.Above 192, and the DAC, the PreAmp , the signal path and the transducers are going to combine in a way that colors the sound much more than increasing the bitrate alone can overcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139578</id>
	<title>Setup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pick up a Little Dot MKIII and a decent pair of Sennheisers and I GUARANTEE you that you will have no trouble telling between flac and I dare say 320kbps mp3's. I think that the real issue is that nobody really has hardware good enough to take advantage of FLAC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pick up a Little Dot MKIII and a decent pair of Sennheisers and I GUARANTEE you that you will have no trouble telling between flac and I dare say 320kbps mp3 's .
I think that the real issue is that nobody really has hardware good enough to take advantage of FLAC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pick up a Little Dot MKIII and a decent pair of Sennheisers and I GUARANTEE you that you will have no trouble telling between flac and I dare say 320kbps mp3's.
I think that the real issue is that nobody really has hardware good enough to take advantage of FLAC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140566</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1258487400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So...would you suggest a musician use his laptop speakers during mix down? Replace your studio monitors with a boom box? Not everyone who spends money for more accurate reproduction is full of crap. The farther you go towards reproducing the actual vibrations we interpret the more information you get, the more accurately, and more importantly fully it reproduces the original sound. Like a high resolution image trying to reproduce the visual experience, you notice the loss the more accurate the screen (medium) is, greater fidelity on screen or medium has a big impact.<br> <br>
Besides, as a electronic music listener (dubstep) I've noticed more and more artists are taking advantage of the spectrum and the accuracy of digital music (usually a lot in the low end that will be more vibration then actual sound). There's some neat things you can experience/do with really accurate stereo equipment.<br> <br>
Of course if you just meant the assholes ya, fuck them.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So...would you suggest a musician use his laptop speakers during mix down ?
Replace your studio monitors with a boom box ?
Not everyone who spends money for more accurate reproduction is full of crap .
The farther you go towards reproducing the actual vibrations we interpret the more information you get , the more accurately , and more importantly fully it reproduces the original sound .
Like a high resolution image trying to reproduce the visual experience , you notice the loss the more accurate the screen ( medium ) is , greater fidelity on screen or medium has a big impact .
Besides , as a electronic music listener ( dubstep ) I 've noticed more and more artists are taking advantage of the spectrum and the accuracy of digital music ( usually a lot in the low end that will be more vibration then actual sound ) .
There 's some neat things you can experience/do with really accurate stereo equipment .
Of course if you just meant the assholes ya , fuck them .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So...would you suggest a musician use his laptop speakers during mix down?
Replace your studio monitors with a boom box?
Not everyone who spends money for more accurate reproduction is full of crap.
The farther you go towards reproducing the actual vibrations we interpret the more information you get, the more accurately, and more importantly fully it reproduces the original sound.
Like a high resolution image trying to reproduce the visual experience, you notice the loss the more accurate the screen (medium) is, greater fidelity on screen or medium has a big impact.
Besides, as a electronic music listener (dubstep) I've noticed more and more artists are taking advantage of the spectrum and the accuracy of digital music (usually a lot in the low end that will be more vibration then actual sound).
There's some neat things you can experience/do with really accurate stereo equipment.
Of course if you just meant the assholes ya, fuck them.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141048</id>
	<title>Analogue  Lossless  Lossy</title>
	<author>blazemonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257068040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I guess I must be one of the few people that can tell the difference in many albums between the lossless and lossy digital format. I find depth is often lost, and high's seem somewhat distorted. ie. Symbols sound flat, and if there's a lot of symbol thrashing, it almost sounds like rattling tinfoil.. But thats just me though, go ahead and ditch "lossless" audio since so many people apparently can't appreciate it anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess I must be one of the few people that can tell the difference in many albums between the lossless and lossy digital format .
I find depth is often lost , and high 's seem somewhat distorted .
ie. Symbols sound flat , and if there 's a lot of symbol thrashing , it almost sounds like rattling tinfoil.. But thats just me though , go ahead and ditch " lossless " audio since so many people apparently ca n't appreciate it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess I must be one of the few people that can tell the difference in many albums between the lossless and lossy digital format.
I find depth is often lost, and high's seem somewhat distorted.
ie. Symbols sound flat, and if there's a lot of symbol thrashing, it almost sounds like rattling tinfoil.. But thats just me though, go ahead and ditch "lossless" audio since so many people apparently can't appreciate it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144494</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257094620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's really that bad, then he shouldn't link it at all. Wait for the story to hit another news source which isn't so bad, or simply find another article that expresses the same sentiment.</p><p>The problem is the mix of BOTH encouraging people to visit the site, and encouraging people to block ads. One or the other I wouldn't mind.</p><p>That's all I'm sayin'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's really that bad , then he should n't link it at all .
Wait for the story to hit another news source which is n't so bad , or simply find another article that expresses the same sentiment.The problem is the mix of BOTH encouraging people to visit the site , and encouraging people to block ads .
One or the other I would n't mind.That 's all I 'm sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's really that bad, then he shouldn't link it at all.
Wait for the story to hit another news source which isn't so bad, or simply find another article that expresses the same sentiment.The problem is the mix of BOTH encouraging people to visit the site, and encouraging people to block ads.
One or the other I wouldn't mind.That's all I'm sayin'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144042</id>
	<title>If only experimental design were so simple</title>
	<author>snowwrestler</author>
	<datestamp>1257092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since they are testing people's perceptions this is in part a psychological test. You cannot conduct perceptual tests directly because perception is affected by the conscious mind. Thus if you asked people "do you hear a difference," you are likely to get many false positives since you are predisposing people to seek a difference. Instead you ask people which one sounds better.</p><p>"even if they can't tell the difference (something impossible to determine from this design) then they are simply guessing or picking one arbitrarily, and there is no way to determine if or when this occurred."</p><p>Actually there is a way to tell if this occurred--you compare the data set to what would result from pure chance, and look for statistically significant differences. If everyone is guessing then in the aggregate the experimental result should match pure chance (50\% say one sounds better, 50\% say the other sounds better). If a statistically significant percentage say one sounds better than the other, then you have proof that it is possible for some people to detect the differences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they are testing people 's perceptions this is in part a psychological test .
You can not conduct perceptual tests directly because perception is affected by the conscious mind .
Thus if you asked people " do you hear a difference , " you are likely to get many false positives since you are predisposing people to seek a difference .
Instead you ask people which one sounds better .
" even if they ca n't tell the difference ( something impossible to determine from this design ) then they are simply guessing or picking one arbitrarily , and there is no way to determine if or when this occurred .
" Actually there is a way to tell if this occurred--you compare the data set to what would result from pure chance , and look for statistically significant differences .
If everyone is guessing then in the aggregate the experimental result should match pure chance ( 50 \ % say one sounds better , 50 \ % say the other sounds better ) .
If a statistically significant percentage say one sounds better than the other , then you have proof that it is possible for some people to detect the differences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they are testing people's perceptions this is in part a psychological test.
You cannot conduct perceptual tests directly because perception is affected by the conscious mind.
Thus if you asked people "do you hear a difference," you are likely to get many false positives since you are predisposing people to seek a difference.
Instead you ask people which one sounds better.
"even if they can't tell the difference (something impossible to determine from this design) then they are simply guessing or picking one arbitrarily, and there is no way to determine if or when this occurred.
"Actually there is a way to tell if this occurred--you compare the data set to what would result from pure chance, and look for statistically significant differences.
If everyone is guessing then in the aggregate the experimental result should match pure chance (50\% say one sounds better, 50\% say the other sounds better).
If a statistically significant percentage say one sounds better than the other, then you have proof that it is possible for some people to detect the differences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142038</id>
	<title>Yes we can.</title>
	<author>dkh2</author>
	<datestamp>1257081360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been keeping my music in lossless FLAC for years.  My family gave my a bunch of crap about this 'cause they don't see the need so I told them to shut up, listen and put their money where their ears are.</p><p>I had  them each pick one of their favorite tracks and ripped each track to MP3, FLAC, and OGG in front of them.  Then I randomized the order and played them as samples A, B, and C.  They consistently picked the MP3 as the least desirable sound.  There was some back-and-forth on OGG vs FLAC but they all agreed that minimally lossy or completely lossless beat the crap out of lossy MP3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been keeping my music in lossless FLAC for years .
My family gave my a bunch of crap about this 'cause they do n't see the need so I told them to shut up , listen and put their money where their ears are.I had them each pick one of their favorite tracks and ripped each track to MP3 , FLAC , and OGG in front of them .
Then I randomized the order and played them as samples A , B , and C. They consistently picked the MP3 as the least desirable sound .
There was some back-and-forth on OGG vs FLAC but they all agreed that minimally lossy or completely lossless beat the crap out of lossy MP3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been keeping my music in lossless FLAC for years.
My family gave my a bunch of crap about this 'cause they don't see the need so I told them to shut up, listen and put their money where their ears are.I had  them each pick one of their favorite tracks and ripped each track to MP3, FLAC, and OGG in front of them.
Then I randomized the order and played them as samples A, B, and C.  They consistently picked the MP3 as the least desirable sound.
There was some back-and-forth on OGG vs FLAC but they all agreed that minimally lossy or completely lossless beat the crap out of lossy MP3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30153864</id>
	<title>Re:Because they are supposed to be hard to tell ..</title>
	<author>phision</author>
	<datestamp>1258621380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>i.e. in a car; there is plenty of extraneous sound to mask most limitations of compressed audio;</p></div><p>The luxury cars and some mid-class models are very well sound isolated. I agree that the dynamics are not that important, but there are other effects that are clearly distinguishable - for example the high frequency filtering in MP3.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i.e .
in a car ; there is plenty of extraneous sound to mask most limitations of compressed audio ; The luxury cars and some mid-class models are very well sound isolated .
I agree that the dynamics are not that important , but there are other effects that are clearly distinguishable - for example the high frequency filtering in MP3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i.e.
in a car; there is plenty of extraneous sound to mask most limitations of compressed audio;The luxury cars and some mid-class models are very well sound isolated.
I agree that the dynamics are not that important, but there are other effects that are clearly distinguishable - for example the high frequency filtering in MP3.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139170</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how people who write articles debating the merits of lossless codec's obviously haven't listened to their sources on a decent setup, although decent audio equipment is becoming harder and harder to get too.</p><p>Still I laughed when I saw this, the difference is pretty substantial, that last bit of quality is what makes the music really pop and take on that quality that makes your skin tingle and your volume knob go to a slightly less than painfull level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how people who write articles debating the merits of lossless codec 's obviously have n't listened to their sources on a decent setup , although decent audio equipment is becoming harder and harder to get too.Still I laughed when I saw this , the difference is pretty substantial , that last bit of quality is what makes the music really pop and take on that quality that makes your skin tingle and your volume knob go to a slightly less than painfull level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how people who write articles debating the merits of lossless codec's obviously haven't listened to their sources on a decent setup, although decent audio equipment is becoming harder and harder to get too.Still I laughed when I saw this, the difference is pretty substantial, that last bit of quality is what makes the music really pop and take on that quality that makes your skin tingle and your volume knob go to a slightly less than painfull level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147258</id>
	<title>Excuse me...</title>
	<author>multimediavt</author>
	<datestamp>1257106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...did they test this with headphones?!?!  Unless you're spending $1,000.00USD or more for a pair of headphones, then you're certainly not going to tell a lot of difference between the audio tracks as described in the article.  You're just not going to get adequate signal reproduction from headphones that cannot accurately represent audio frequencies that are truncated using the sampling rates and encoding methods described.  I will also call shenanigans on using downloaded files for the test!  What tool was used to encode them?  What hardware?  Was the tool the same for each song file AND each encoding scheme?  Was the encoding algorithm of each scheme similar or the same?</p><p>Best pseudo-science remain being called opinion.</p><p>First of all, most people don't know shite about audio quality to begin with.  They actually think that CDs sound better than records.  Not only is that technically inaccurate, it's downright sad.</p><p>Second, most people listen to music on crappy headphones or crappy home or car stereos, so obviously they are going to think that a direct digital feed of a symphony from a 24/96 DAC is going to sound like a 128kbps MP3 recording of the same performance.</p><p>Third, most people's ears have been damaged in some way that either has killed their low range or high range frequency response in one ear or the other, or both.  So, when they say they "CAN'T" tell the difference, they actually mean it.</p><p>Finally, who cares?  If I had my way we'd all get 32-bit/192kHz quality content for everything that was digital and have either big ass reel-to-reel decks, with 1" or 2" tape or similar analog equipment for recording and playback.  But, that ain't practical.  So, whatever you can stand is fine.  Just don't expect me to buy too much of it if I can only get it in that quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...did they test this with headphones ? ! ? !
Unless you 're spending $ 1,000.00USD or more for a pair of headphones , then you 're certainly not going to tell a lot of difference between the audio tracks as described in the article .
You 're just not going to get adequate signal reproduction from headphones that can not accurately represent audio frequencies that are truncated using the sampling rates and encoding methods described .
I will also call shenanigans on using downloaded files for the test !
What tool was used to encode them ?
What hardware ?
Was the tool the same for each song file AND each encoding scheme ?
Was the encoding algorithm of each scheme similar or the same ? Best pseudo-science remain being called opinion.First of all , most people do n't know shite about audio quality to begin with .
They actually think that CDs sound better than records .
Not only is that technically inaccurate , it 's downright sad.Second , most people listen to music on crappy headphones or crappy home or car stereos , so obviously they are going to think that a direct digital feed of a symphony from a 24/96 DAC is going to sound like a 128kbps MP3 recording of the same performance.Third , most people 's ears have been damaged in some way that either has killed their low range or high range frequency response in one ear or the other , or both .
So , when they say they " CA N'T " tell the difference , they actually mean it.Finally , who cares ?
If I had my way we 'd all get 32-bit/192kHz quality content for everything that was digital and have either big ass reel-to-reel decks , with 1 " or 2 " tape or similar analog equipment for recording and playback .
But , that ai n't practical .
So , whatever you can stand is fine .
Just do n't expect me to buy too much of it if I can only get it in that quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...did they test this with headphones?!?!
Unless you're spending $1,000.00USD or more for a pair of headphones, then you're certainly not going to tell a lot of difference between the audio tracks as described in the article.
You're just not going to get adequate signal reproduction from headphones that cannot accurately represent audio frequencies that are truncated using the sampling rates and encoding methods described.
I will also call shenanigans on using downloaded files for the test!
What tool was used to encode them?
What hardware?
Was the tool the same for each song file AND each encoding scheme?
Was the encoding algorithm of each scheme similar or the same?Best pseudo-science remain being called opinion.First of all, most people don't know shite about audio quality to begin with.
They actually think that CDs sound better than records.
Not only is that technically inaccurate, it's downright sad.Second, most people listen to music on crappy headphones or crappy home or car stereos, so obviously they are going to think that a direct digital feed of a symphony from a 24/96 DAC is going to sound like a 128kbps MP3 recording of the same performance.Third, most people's ears have been damaged in some way that either has killed their low range or high range frequency response in one ear or the other, or both.
So, when they say they "CAN'T" tell the difference, they actually mean it.Finally, who cares?
If I had my way we'd all get 32-bit/192kHz quality content for everything that was digital and have either big ass reel-to-reel decks, with 1" or 2" tape or similar analog equipment for recording and playback.
But, that ain't practical.
So, whatever you can stand is fine.
Just don't expect me to buy too much of it if I can only get it in that quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30158924</id>
	<title>Mediocre test equipment</title>
	<author>whitelabrat</author>
	<datestamp>1258654200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The device iBasso D3 uses a TI PCM2706 which is notoriously jittery.  They may have gotten better results using a good pro-grade PCI bus sound card and an external DAC using S/PDIF instead.  The Beyerdynamic 770 headphones are good, but hardly what I'd consider a good choice for this test.  AKG K701's would be better for the job.</p><p>In any case the author does make a reasonable point.  Using ho-hum equipment returns ho-hum results where folks can't tell the difference.  The author refers to audiophiles as mystics who are confused about sound quality.  Fact is anyone with scientifically proven equipment that is up to snuff and with a trained ear, can determine the difference and appreciate a higher resolution format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The device iBasso D3 uses a TI PCM2706 which is notoriously jittery .
They may have gotten better results using a good pro-grade PCI bus sound card and an external DAC using S/PDIF instead .
The Beyerdynamic 770 headphones are good , but hardly what I 'd consider a good choice for this test .
AKG K701 's would be better for the job.In any case the author does make a reasonable point .
Using ho-hum equipment returns ho-hum results where folks ca n't tell the difference .
The author refers to audiophiles as mystics who are confused about sound quality .
Fact is anyone with scientifically proven equipment that is up to snuff and with a trained ear , can determine the difference and appreciate a higher resolution format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The device iBasso D3 uses a TI PCM2706 which is notoriously jittery.
They may have gotten better results using a good pro-grade PCI bus sound card and an external DAC using S/PDIF instead.
The Beyerdynamic 770 headphones are good, but hardly what I'd consider a good choice for this test.
AKG K701's would be better for the job.In any case the author does make a reasonable point.
Using ho-hum equipment returns ho-hum results where folks can't tell the difference.
The author refers to audiophiles as mystics who are confused about sound quality.
Fact is anyone with scientifically proven equipment that is up to snuff and with a trained ear, can determine the difference and appreciate a higher resolution format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</id>
	<title>Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.</p></div><p>These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries, and it's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself. How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended , lest you be blinded.These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries , and it 's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself .
How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visiting with adblock and flashblock is highly recommended, lest you be blinded.These statements are becoming increasingly common in story summaries, and it's sadly ironic for a site that serves ads itself.
How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140812</id>
	<title>Free ABX Tester for Mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi Everyone,<br>I saw this article, and while I haven't read all the comments yet, I wanted to mention that I coded up a little ABX tester for Mac (Leopard or SL) a little while ago. I am hoping to add some improvements in the coming weeks, so if anybody tries it out and has any suggestions, I would be glad to get feedback.</p><p>The program is available here:<br>http://swingingsultan.com/Swinging\_Sultan/Juxtapose.html</p><p>My contact page is available there as well.<br>-owen</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi Everyone,I saw this article , and while I have n't read all the comments yet , I wanted to mention that I coded up a little ABX tester for Mac ( Leopard or SL ) a little while ago .
I am hoping to add some improvements in the coming weeks , so if anybody tries it out and has any suggestions , I would be glad to get feedback.The program is available here : http : //swingingsultan.com/Swinging \ _Sultan/Juxtapose.htmlMy contact page is available there as well.-owen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi Everyone,I saw this article, and while I haven't read all the comments yet, I wanted to mention that I coded up a little ABX tester for Mac (Leopard or SL) a little while ago.
I am hoping to add some improvements in the coming weeks, so if anybody tries it out and has any suggestions, I would be glad to get feedback.The program is available here:http://swingingsultan.com/Swinging\_Sultan/Juxtapose.htmlMy contact page is available there as well.-owen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140540</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258487100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with FLAC is that it requres floating point calculations, making it somewhat impractical for portable devices. BOOYA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with FLAC is that it requres floating point calculations , making it somewhat impractical for portable devices .
BOOYA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with FLAC is that it requres floating point calculations, making it somewhat impractical for portable devices.
BOOYA!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30170872</id>
	<title>Compared to live music, they all fail</title>
	<author>coldsalmon</author>
	<datestamp>1258731540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the goal is to reproduce live music, then everything fails miserably.  I realize that much music is designed primarily for listening through headphones/speakers, and for this there may be an argument for "fidelity," i.e. being faithful to the recording engineer's concept.  However, I listen to mostly classical and jazz music, and in this case the "fidelity" involves faithfulness to the sound of a live performance.  Nothing -- not the $10,000 headphones, not the most pristine lossless recording -- comes close.  Even if lossless encoding were 10\% better than lossy encoding (which it certainly is not), it would still be 60\% worse than a live performance.  I use decent headphones (circa $90) and lossy encoding, and I save my time and money for live performances.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the goal is to reproduce live music , then everything fails miserably .
I realize that much music is designed primarily for listening through headphones/speakers , and for this there may be an argument for " fidelity , " i.e .
being faithful to the recording engineer 's concept .
However , I listen to mostly classical and jazz music , and in this case the " fidelity " involves faithfulness to the sound of a live performance .
Nothing -- not the $ 10,000 headphones , not the most pristine lossless recording -- comes close .
Even if lossless encoding were 10 \ % better than lossy encoding ( which it certainly is not ) , it would still be 60 \ % worse than a live performance .
I use decent headphones ( circa $ 90 ) and lossy encoding , and I save my time and money for live performances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the goal is to reproduce live music, then everything fails miserably.
I realize that much music is designed primarily for listening through headphones/speakers, and for this there may be an argument for "fidelity," i.e.
being faithful to the recording engineer's concept.
However, I listen to mostly classical and jazz music, and in this case the "fidelity" involves faithfulness to the sound of a live performance.
Nothing -- not the $10,000 headphones, not the most pristine lossless recording -- comes close.
Even if lossless encoding were 10\% better than lossy encoding (which it certainly is not), it would still be 60\% worse than a live performance.
I use decent headphones (circa $90) and lossy encoding, and I save my time and money for live performances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740</id>
	<title>Amateur rocket scientists...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1258479720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did a study myself...  One at a time, I took people off the street, and told them to make a rocket that could go into space.  None of them could.  The result is clear: space travel is impossible.</p><p>Lossy audio coding is an area of intensive scientific study.  All the comments here amount to a bunch of 6 year-old kids debating where babies come from...</p><p>The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's.  The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo.  If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original.  ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.</p><p>And don't bother claiming your 192kbps MP3s sound perfect, either.  MP3 is certainly not the ideal audio format, so it doesn't come that close.  But much more importantly, it (like all low-bitrate audio codecs) is a frequency domain codec, making it impossible to avoid pre-echo and the like AT ANY BITRATE.  MP3, AAC, Vorbis, et al. just can't possibly do it.</p><p>The only possible competitors for indistinguishable (transparent) lossy audio coding are time domain codecs, primarily: MPEG-1 Layer II, and Musepack.  Some hybrids like AC-3 exist as well.</p><p>Amateur testing is pretty pointless...  You're no longer judging which sounds more like the original, you're picking the one whose distortions you like more.  Low bitrate codecs often throw in a relatively small amount of noise, which masks artifacts, and simply sounds sufficiently different that it's no longer the same audio.  Compare a song (from a CD), to the same after normalizing the volume, and you'll have the same problem...  You'll probably pick the modified version as sounding better, even though both are lossy, and at first glance, the same audio.</p><p>I can certainly imagine the next generation of lossy audio codecs will pitch-shift music to an octave people generally prefer, to get a higher rating on such "tests".  Cheap igital cameras often do the same thing...  over-correcting gamma to make every picture more white (bluish, really) and turning up the contrast to make it more vivid, so much so that it looks "better than the real thing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a study myself... One at a time , I took people off the street , and told them to make a rocket that could go into space .
None of them could .
The result is clear : space travel is impossible.Lossy audio coding is an area of intensive scientific study .
All the comments here amount to a bunch of 6 year-old kids debating where babies come from...The answer to the question is quite simple , and has been known since the 1980 's .
The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo .
If you 're encoding below that , it ca n't possibly be indistinguishable from the original .
ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.And do n't bother claiming your 192kbps MP3s sound perfect , either .
MP3 is certainly not the ideal audio format , so it does n't come that close .
But much more importantly , it ( like all low-bitrate audio codecs ) is a frequency domain codec , making it impossible to avoid pre-echo and the like AT ANY BITRATE .
MP3 , AAC , Vorbis , et al .
just ca n't possibly do it.The only possible competitors for indistinguishable ( transparent ) lossy audio coding are time domain codecs , primarily : MPEG-1 Layer II , and Musepack .
Some hybrids like AC-3 exist as well.Amateur testing is pretty pointless... You 're no longer judging which sounds more like the original , you 're picking the one whose distortions you like more .
Low bitrate codecs often throw in a relatively small amount of noise , which masks artifacts , and simply sounds sufficiently different that it 's no longer the same audio .
Compare a song ( from a CD ) , to the same after normalizing the volume , and you 'll have the same problem... You 'll probably pick the modified version as sounding better , even though both are lossy , and at first glance , the same audio.I can certainly imagine the next generation of lossy audio codecs will pitch-shift music to an octave people generally prefer , to get a higher rating on such " tests " .
Cheap igital cameras often do the same thing... over-correcting gamma to make every picture more white ( bluish , really ) and turning up the contrast to make it more vivid , so much so that it looks " better than the real thing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a study myself...  One at a time, I took people off the street, and told them to make a rocket that could go into space.
None of them could.
The result is clear: space travel is impossible.Lossy audio coding is an area of intensive scientific study.
All the comments here amount to a bunch of 6 year-old kids debating where babies come from...The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's.
The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo.
If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original.
ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.And don't bother claiming your 192kbps MP3s sound perfect, either.
MP3 is certainly not the ideal audio format, so it doesn't come that close.
But much more importantly, it (like all low-bitrate audio codecs) is a frequency domain codec, making it impossible to avoid pre-echo and the like AT ANY BITRATE.
MP3, AAC, Vorbis, et al.
just can't possibly do it.The only possible competitors for indistinguishable (transparent) lossy audio coding are time domain codecs, primarily: MPEG-1 Layer II, and Musepack.
Some hybrids like AC-3 exist as well.Amateur testing is pretty pointless...  You're no longer judging which sounds more like the original, you're picking the one whose distortions you like more.
Low bitrate codecs often throw in a relatively small amount of noise, which masks artifacts, and simply sounds sufficiently different that it's no longer the same audio.
Compare a song (from a CD), to the same after normalizing the volume, and you'll have the same problem...  You'll probably pick the modified version as sounding better, even though both are lossy, and at first glance, the same audio.I can certainly imagine the next generation of lossy audio codecs will pitch-shift music to an octave people generally prefer, to get a higher rating on such "tests".
Cheap igital cameras often do the same thing...  over-correcting gamma to make every picture more white (bluish, really) and turning up the contrast to make it more vivid, so much so that it looks "better than the real thing".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143900</id>
	<title>Re:Ya this was a horrible test</title>
	<author>hufman</author>
	<datestamp>1257092460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, ABX means that A is uncompressed, B is compressed, and the user has to determine whether X is A or B.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , ABX means that A is uncompressed , B is compressed , and the user has to determine whether X is A or B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, ABX means that A is uncompressed, B is compressed, and the user has to determine whether X is A or B.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139020</id>
	<title>Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and certainly not in a typical house room, car, bus, or bike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and certainly not in a typical house room , car , bus , or bike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and certainly not in a typical house room, car, bus, or bike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140432</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>searleb</author>
	<datestamp>1258485960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many of you misunderstand my position.
<br> <br>
1) I'm young enough to have never owned a tape player growing up, let alone a record player.  I almost exclusively listen to music released in the last 5 years.  I have no nostalgia for the past or any desire to be anachronistic.  I just love listening to music.
<br> <br>
2) I'm a scientist, and not a fluffy one-- I'm an analytical chemist working in a terminal scientific position.  I like unbiased data.  Unfortunately we don't have any.  What I can tell you is my personal subjective testing strategy.
<br> <br>
I'll often buy duplicate copies of music I like, both on CD and on vinyl.  There are many reasons why, and convenience is certainly at the top.  I have a system where I can A/B my sources, keeping the same amps and speakers.
<br> <br>
Using audiophile headphones, I usually can't tell any difference in quality.  Usually the vinyl has enough negative and distracting features to make me dislike that listening experience.
<br> <br>
Using speakers is a completely different experience.  The vinyl feels more engaging and makes me want to focus on just the music-- ignoring the reproduction.  When I try to work to vinyl I find myself listening to the music and forgetting what I was supposed to do.  I don't have this problem when I try to work to CDs.
<br> <br>
Understand that I spent years trying to "hear" the difference between vinyl and CDs.  From a technical perspective, I cried BS in every which way.  I'm a firm believer that the difference is real but not something you can hear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of you misunderstand my position .
1 ) I 'm young enough to have never owned a tape player growing up , let alone a record player .
I almost exclusively listen to music released in the last 5 years .
I have no nostalgia for the past or any desire to be anachronistic .
I just love listening to music .
2 ) I 'm a scientist , and not a fluffy one-- I 'm an analytical chemist working in a terminal scientific position .
I like unbiased data .
Unfortunately we do n't have any .
What I can tell you is my personal subjective testing strategy .
I 'll often buy duplicate copies of music I like , both on CD and on vinyl .
There are many reasons why , and convenience is certainly at the top .
I have a system where I can A/B my sources , keeping the same amps and speakers .
Using audiophile headphones , I usually ca n't tell any difference in quality .
Usually the vinyl has enough negative and distracting features to make me dislike that listening experience .
Using speakers is a completely different experience .
The vinyl feels more engaging and makes me want to focus on just the music-- ignoring the reproduction .
When I try to work to vinyl I find myself listening to the music and forgetting what I was supposed to do .
I do n't have this problem when I try to work to CDs .
Understand that I spent years trying to " hear " the difference between vinyl and CDs .
From a technical perspective , I cried BS in every which way .
I 'm a firm believer that the difference is real but not something you can hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of you misunderstand my position.
1) I'm young enough to have never owned a tape player growing up, let alone a record player.
I almost exclusively listen to music released in the last 5 years.
I have no nostalgia for the past or any desire to be anachronistic.
I just love listening to music.
2) I'm a scientist, and not a fluffy one-- I'm an analytical chemist working in a terminal scientific position.
I like unbiased data.
Unfortunately we don't have any.
What I can tell you is my personal subjective testing strategy.
I'll often buy duplicate copies of music I like, both on CD and on vinyl.
There are many reasons why, and convenience is certainly at the top.
I have a system where I can A/B my sources, keeping the same amps and speakers.
Using audiophile headphones, I usually can't tell any difference in quality.
Usually the vinyl has enough negative and distracting features to make me dislike that listening experience.
Using speakers is a completely different experience.
The vinyl feels more engaging and makes me want to focus on just the music-- ignoring the reproduction.
When I try to work to vinyl I find myself listening to the music and forgetting what I was supposed to do.
I don't have this problem when I try to work to CDs.
Understand that I spent years trying to "hear" the difference between vinyl and CDs.
From a technical perspective, I cried BS in every which way.
I'm a firm believer that the difference is real but not something you can hear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147964</id>
	<title>192 kb/s AAC</title>
	<author>ChristTrekker</author>
	<datestamp>1257066540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good enough for me.  </p><p>Unless I'm ripping a ringtone for my phone, then it's 64 kb/s MP3.  I tried dropping it to 48, but it became truly, truly horrid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good enough for me .
Unless I 'm ripping a ringtone for my phone , then it 's 64 kb/s MP3 .
I tried dropping it to 48 , but it became truly , truly horrid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good enough for me.
Unless I'm ripping a ringtone for my phone, then it's 64 kb/s MP3.
I tried dropping it to 48, but it became truly, truly horrid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143622</id>
	<title>Re:MP3s, perceptual coding and a little test</title>
	<author>floodo1</author>
	<datestamp>1257091320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you do realize that the article mentions that one of the testers was able to identify FLAC every single time right?<br> <br>SOME people can tell the difference, myself included. The usual culprit is lack of bass in MP3's, or at least bass that is missing the punch of the original recording.<br> <br>Obviously MP3 is great for the masses, but for some people FLAC is worthwhile</htmltext>
<tokenext>you do realize that the article mentions that one of the testers was able to identify FLAC every single time right ?
SOME people can tell the difference , myself included .
The usual culprit is lack of bass in MP3 's , or at least bass that is missing the punch of the original recording .
Obviously MP3 is great for the masses , but for some people FLAC is worthwhile</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you do realize that the article mentions that one of the testers was able to identify FLAC every single time right?
SOME people can tell the difference, myself included.
The usual culprit is lack of bass in MP3's, or at least bass that is missing the punch of the original recording.
Obviously MP3 is great for the masses, but for some people FLAC is worthwhile</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141778</id>
	<title>quick and dirty ain't working</title>
	<author>larse</author>
	<datestamp>1257078060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stopped reading at "quick and dirty" - media quality comparison requires a careful methodology if the results are to be at all meaningful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped reading at " quick and dirty " - media quality comparison requires a careful methodology if the results are to be at all meaningful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped reading at "quick and dirty" - media quality comparison requires a careful methodology if the results are to be at all meaningful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141008</id>
	<title>You don't have a good enough rig</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my experience, most people don't have audio equipment that is accurate enough to reveal the imperfections of a lossy format. I can easily tell the difference of even 320 kbs mp3 on my studio reference monitors (although this does take some training).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my experience , most people do n't have audio equipment that is accurate enough to reveal the imperfections of a lossy format .
I can easily tell the difference of even 320 kbs mp3 on my studio reference monitors ( although this does take some training ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my experience, most people don't have audio equipment that is accurate enough to reveal the imperfections of a lossy format.
I can easily tell the difference of even 320 kbs mp3 on my studio reference monitors (although this does take some training).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143518</id>
	<title>MP3 sounds better to an MP3 trained ear</title>
	<author>Xabraxas</author>
	<datestamp>1257090960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought we had an article about this phenomenon a while back.  It turns out that people are so used to listening to music in MP3 format that it sounds "better" to them.  It's really just familiarity.  I have used FLAC for years and I can tell the difference with crappy headphones on my "MP3" player when I copy some MP3's from my girlfriend's computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we had an article about this phenomenon a while back .
It turns out that people are so used to listening to music in MP3 format that it sounds " better " to them .
It 's really just familiarity .
I have used FLAC for years and I can tell the difference with crappy headphones on my " MP3 " player when I copy some MP3 's from my girlfriend 's computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we had an article about this phenomenon a while back.
It turns out that people are so used to listening to music in MP3 format that it sounds "better" to them.
It's really just familiarity.
I have used FLAC for years and I can tell the difference with crappy headphones on my "MP3" player when I copy some MP3's from my girlfriend's computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142046</id>
	<title>Don't know about "we", but I can</title>
	<author>tubeguy</author>
	<datestamp>1257081600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did a double blind test and picked 10 out of 10 correct comparing mp3 at 128 to 320 to wav, the difference was always obvious in every case. What do you expect? Even at 320, 75\% if the encoded information is just gone. But I guess the whole issue really only matters to people to whom it matters. Most have never heard music played properly so they don't know the difference. Maybe ignorance is bliss in this case, hearing my college roomie's Quad setup in the 80s sent me on a very expensive and sometimes frustrating ride.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a double blind test and picked 10 out of 10 correct comparing mp3 at 128 to 320 to wav , the difference was always obvious in every case .
What do you expect ?
Even at 320 , 75 \ % if the encoded information is just gone .
But I guess the whole issue really only matters to people to whom it matters .
Most have never heard music played properly so they do n't know the difference .
Maybe ignorance is bliss in this case , hearing my college roomie 's Quad setup in the 80s sent me on a very expensive and sometimes frustrating ride .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a double blind test and picked 10 out of 10 correct comparing mp3 at 128 to 320 to wav, the difference was always obvious in every case.
What do you expect?
Even at 320, 75\% if the encoded information is just gone.
But I guess the whole issue really only matters to people to whom it matters.
Most have never heard music played properly so they don't know the difference.
Maybe ignorance is bliss in this case, hearing my college roomie's Quad setup in the 80s sent me on a very expensive and sometimes frustrating ride.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139732</id>
	<title>Easy way to fix this.</title>
	<author>awshidahak</author>
	<datestamp>1258479720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buy earbuds from the dollar store and everything will sound like crap.  You won't be annoyed because the mp3 was encoded at 128 anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy earbuds from the dollar store and everything will sound like crap .
You wo n't be annoyed because the mp3 was encoded at 128 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy earbuds from the dollar store and everything will sound like crap.
You won't be annoyed because the mp3 was encoded at 128 anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139116</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Snowblindeye</author>
	<datestamp>1258475100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree. I find the trend of many websites to split the articles into as many as 10 - 15 pages beyond annoying. My browser has a scrollbar for a reason, you don't have to paginate it for me. I know they are trying to increase ad revenue, but it makes me use those sites less. Or get an extension like auto pager.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
I find the trend of many websites to split the articles into as many as 10 - 15 pages beyond annoying .
My browser has a scrollbar for a reason , you do n't have to paginate it for me .
I know they are trying to increase ad revenue , but it makes me use those sites less .
Or get an extension like auto pager .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
I find the trend of many websites to split the articles into as many as 10 - 15 pages beyond annoying.
My browser has a scrollbar for a reason, you don't have to paginate it for me.
I know they are trying to increase ad revenue, but it makes me use those sites less.
Or get an extension like auto pager.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139586</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when does a client blocking undesired content qualify as bad netiquette?  How about the siteop not place 'valuable' content he wants to charge for ON A PUBLICALLY OPEN http server??</p><p>I swear, did all these internet ad 'geniuses' come out of the TV biz or what?  If you don't like adblock, go back to TV and serve your trash to those morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does a client blocking undesired content qualify as bad netiquette ?
How about the siteop not place 'valuable ' content he wants to charge for ON A PUBLICALLY OPEN http server ?
? I swear , did all these internet ad 'geniuses ' come out of the TV biz or what ?
If you do n't like adblock , go back to TV and serve your trash to those morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does a client blocking undesired content qualify as bad netiquette?
How about the siteop not place 'valuable' content he wants to charge for ON A PUBLICALLY OPEN http server?
?I swear, did all these internet ad 'geniuses' come out of the TV biz or what?
If you don't like adblock, go back to TV and serve your trash to those morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146718</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1257103680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intent of the gold contacts... ok, well, today, the intent is to make consumers say "oooh... goooollllddddd" and buy these cables, rather than the cables without gold plating for half the price sitting next to them. But the real functional purpose is simple: gold doesn't corrode. Same reason there's gold plating on the fingers of your PCIe cards, or on many types of computer connector.</p><p>Of course, the gold is so thin, it's not totally useless, but short-term useful. If you plug once, the gold's still in place, and your connector won't corrode, or react with the metal of the mating connector, assuming that's not also gold. But cycle this a little, and the gold's worn off... and chances are, what's under that gold is something evil.</p><p>This is why professional audio cables, as used in studios, on stage, etc. typically have much thicker nickel plating. Not as attractive as gold, but also not corrosive, and it lasts through thousands of plug/unplug cycles.</p><p>As far as what's important, you left out impedance... cable impedance is very important, for long runs of cables. When it's a video cable, or worse yet, a digital cable, "short run" is probably a matter of an inch or few... so an impedance matched cable is life of death. Important for audio, too... at least when you have a cable run of a mile or two. Over practical lengths, it's not an issue.. the frequencies are way too low.</p><p>Similar is the "skin effect" that audiophiles often yammer about (the wire's self-inductance, plus an AC signal, creates a small reverse current, which manifests as an increased resistance, the deeper one goes into the wire). For a radio signal, a gigabit digital link, etc. it is actually true that most of the signal rides very close to the surface of the connector.. effectively, the cable has more resistance than the gauge would suggest. At audio frequencies, not so much. A 10ft run of 12ga solid wire would have a natural resistance of about 0.033 ohms. At 20kHz, you might see an additional 0.011 ohms... not significant. This drops off with frequency, of course. And it's not terribly likely that anyone's going to use 12ga solid core wire... oh wait, that's the coat-hanger speaker wire again! So there actually is a tiny but measurable difference between that and the [stranded] Monster cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intent of the gold contacts... ok , well , today , the intent is to make consumers say " oooh... goooollllddddd " and buy these cables , rather than the cables without gold plating for half the price sitting next to them .
But the real functional purpose is simple : gold does n't corrode .
Same reason there 's gold plating on the fingers of your PCIe cards , or on many types of computer connector.Of course , the gold is so thin , it 's not totally useless , but short-term useful .
If you plug once , the gold 's still in place , and your connector wo n't corrode , or react with the metal of the mating connector , assuming that 's not also gold .
But cycle this a little , and the gold 's worn off... and chances are , what 's under that gold is something evil.This is why professional audio cables , as used in studios , on stage , etc .
typically have much thicker nickel plating .
Not as attractive as gold , but also not corrosive , and it lasts through thousands of plug/unplug cycles.As far as what 's important , you left out impedance... cable impedance is very important , for long runs of cables .
When it 's a video cable , or worse yet , a digital cable , " short run " is probably a matter of an inch or few... so an impedance matched cable is life of death .
Important for audio , too... at least when you have a cable run of a mile or two .
Over practical lengths , it 's not an issue.. the frequencies are way too low.Similar is the " skin effect " that audiophiles often yammer about ( the wire 's self-inductance , plus an AC signal , creates a small reverse current , which manifests as an increased resistance , the deeper one goes into the wire ) .
For a radio signal , a gigabit digital link , etc .
it is actually true that most of the signal rides very close to the surface of the connector.. effectively , the cable has more resistance than the gauge would suggest .
At audio frequencies , not so much .
A 10ft run of 12ga solid wire would have a natural resistance of about 0.033 ohms .
At 20kHz , you might see an additional 0.011 ohms... not significant .
This drops off with frequency , of course .
And it 's not terribly likely that anyone 's going to use 12ga solid core wire... oh wait , that 's the coat-hanger speaker wire again !
So there actually is a tiny but measurable difference between that and the [ stranded ] Monster cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intent of the gold contacts... ok, well, today, the intent is to make consumers say "oooh... goooollllddddd" and buy these cables, rather than the cables without gold plating for half the price sitting next to them.
But the real functional purpose is simple: gold doesn't corrode.
Same reason there's gold plating on the fingers of your PCIe cards, or on many types of computer connector.Of course, the gold is so thin, it's not totally useless, but short-term useful.
If you plug once, the gold's still in place, and your connector won't corrode, or react with the metal of the mating connector, assuming that's not also gold.
But cycle this a little, and the gold's worn off... and chances are, what's under that gold is something evil.This is why professional audio cables, as used in studios, on stage, etc.
typically have much thicker nickel plating.
Not as attractive as gold, but also not corrosive, and it lasts through thousands of plug/unplug cycles.As far as what's important, you left out impedance... cable impedance is very important, for long runs of cables.
When it's a video cable, or worse yet, a digital cable, "short run" is probably a matter of an inch or few... so an impedance matched cable is life of death.
Important for audio, too... at least when you have a cable run of a mile or two.
Over practical lengths, it's not an issue.. the frequencies are way too low.Similar is the "skin effect" that audiophiles often yammer about (the wire's self-inductance, plus an AC signal, creates a small reverse current, which manifests as an increased resistance, the deeper one goes into the wire).
For a radio signal, a gigabit digital link, etc.
it is actually true that most of the signal rides very close to the surface of the connector.. effectively, the cable has more resistance than the gauge would suggest.
At audio frequencies, not so much.
A 10ft run of 12ga solid wire would have a natural resistance of about 0.033 ohms.
At 20kHz, you might see an additional 0.011 ohms... not significant.
This drops off with frequency, of course.
And it's not terribly likely that anyone's going to use 12ga solid core wire... oh wait, that's the coat-hanger speaker wire again!
So there actually is a tiny but measurable difference between that and the [stranded] Monster cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140124</id>
	<title>I can tell the difference - ABX Tested</title>
	<author>Velimir</author>
	<datestamp>1258482900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may be a shameless plug for my website but I did an ABX sound test to see if I can tell the difference, and it turns out I can for some sounds and can't for others. There was a wide variation, for some I couldn't tell between 128 kbps and lossless, but for some I could tell between 320 kbps and lossless. It is possible, you can do it. You have to know what to look for. Note: I have expensive headphones so that would have helped with the sound resolution.

Links for my posts:
<a href="http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/17\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_1\_-\_Introduction.html" title="vel.co.nz" rel="nofollow">http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/17\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_1\_-\_Introduction.html</a> [vel.co.nz]
<a href="http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/28\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_2\_-\_Materials\_and\_Methods\_.html" title="vel.co.nz" rel="nofollow">http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/28\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_2\_-\_Materials\_and\_Methods\_.html</a> [vel.co.nz]
<a href="http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_3\_-\_Results\_and\_Discussion.html" title="vel.co.nz" rel="nofollow">http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_3\_-\_Results\_and\_Discussion.html</a> [vel.co.nz]

Last one the most relevant if you just want to see the results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be a shameless plug for my website but I did an ABX sound test to see if I can tell the difference , and it turns out I can for some sounds and ca n't for others .
There was a wide variation , for some I could n't tell between 128 kbps and lossless , but for some I could tell between 320 kbps and lossless .
It is possible , you can do it .
You have to know what to look for .
Note : I have expensive headphones so that would have helped with the sound resolution .
Links for my posts : http : //vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/17 \ _ABX \ _of \ _Lossless \ _versus \ _MP3 \ _- \ _Part \ _1 \ _- \ _Introduction.html [ vel.co.nz ] http : //vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/28 \ _ABX \ _of \ _Lossless \ _versus \ _MP3 \ _- \ _Part \ _2 \ _- \ _Materials \ _and \ _Methods \ _.html [ vel.co.nz ] http : //vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21 \ _ABX \ _of \ _Lossless \ _versus \ _MP3 \ _- \ _Part \ _3 \ _- \ _Results \ _and \ _Discussion.html [ vel.co.nz ] Last one the most relevant if you just want to see the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be a shameless plug for my website but I did an ABX sound test to see if I can tell the difference, and it turns out I can for some sounds and can't for others.
There was a wide variation, for some I couldn't tell between 128 kbps and lossless, but for some I could tell between 320 kbps and lossless.
It is possible, you can do it.
You have to know what to look for.
Note: I have expensive headphones so that would have helped with the sound resolution.
Links for my posts:
http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/17\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_1\_-\_Introduction.html [vel.co.nz]
http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/7/28\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_2\_-\_Materials\_and\_Methods\_.html [vel.co.nz]
http://vel.co.nz/vel.co.nz/Blog/Entries/2009/8/21\_ABX\_of\_Lossless\_versus\_MP3\_-\_Part\_3\_-\_Results\_and\_Discussion.html [vel.co.nz]

Last one the most relevant if you just want to see the results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146046</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257100800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the difference and don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the difference and do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the difference and don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142244</id>
	<title>knowing what to look for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wouldn't want to do a test with a commodity soundcard or portable mp3 player - I believe the difference requires decent ADDA converters which don't necessarily cost an arm and a leg (a $250 receiver should suffice) and decent speakers (again, just decent will do). With that set, if you focus the reverb trails on the same track encoded to 192 mp3 vs a 24bit flac - the difference is obvious. When there's a lot going on in the mix it gets significantly more difficult to tell since the lossiness is more prevalent in the lower end of the dynamics..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't want to do a test with a commodity soundcard or portable mp3 player - I believe the difference requires decent ADDA converters which do n't necessarily cost an arm and a leg ( a $ 250 receiver should suffice ) and decent speakers ( again , just decent will do ) .
With that set , if you focus the reverb trails on the same track encoded to 192 mp3 vs a 24bit flac - the difference is obvious .
When there 's a lot going on in the mix it gets significantly more difficult to tell since the lossiness is more prevalent in the lower end of the dynamics. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't want to do a test with a commodity soundcard or portable mp3 player - I believe the difference requires decent ADDA converters which don't necessarily cost an arm and a leg (a $250 receiver should suffice) and decent speakers (again, just decent will do).
With that set, if you focus the reverb trails on the same track encoded to 192 mp3 vs a 24bit flac - the difference is obvious.
When there's a lot going on in the mix it gets significantly more difficult to tell since the lossiness is more prevalent in the lower end of the dynamics..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143440</id>
	<title>People Miss The Point</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1257090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To say that someone did an objective test which found mp3s or flacs sound better is fundamentally flawed. Now if you listened enough and trained your ears you would hear things that others might miss. I have no doubt that a top studio producer would hear things in the mix that I would not. And also,I would hear things that the teenager up the street with ADD and a fifteen second attention span would not.<br>If you want to LISTEN to music, you have to really LISTEN.<br>And I don't care if some people think that mp3s sound better. Their opinions<br>are obviously irrelevant. Even a 320 kb/s mp3 sounds "off". Some people think<br>Creative makes a good sound card. Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To say that someone did an objective test which found mp3s or flacs sound better is fundamentally flawed .
Now if you listened enough and trained your ears you would hear things that others might miss .
I have no doubt that a top studio producer would hear things in the mix that I would not .
And also,I would hear things that the teenager up the street with ADD and a fifteen second attention span would not.If you want to LISTEN to music , you have to really LISTEN.And I do n't care if some people think that mp3s sound better .
Their opinionsare obviously irrelevant .
Even a 320 kb/s mp3 sounds " off " .
Some people thinkCreative makes a good sound card .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To say that someone did an objective test which found mp3s or flacs sound better is fundamentally flawed.
Now if you listened enough and trained your ears you would hear things that others might miss.
I have no doubt that a top studio producer would hear things in the mix that I would not.
And also,I would hear things that the teenager up the street with ADD and a fifteen second attention span would not.If you want to LISTEN to music, you have to really LISTEN.And I don't care if some people think that mp3s sound better.
Their opinionsare obviously irrelevant.
Even a 320 kb/s mp3 sounds "off".
Some people thinkCreative makes a good sound card.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142114</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>fireylord</author>
	<datestamp>1257082380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with any digital format is the that the sound is broken up into discrete bits.  Even a lower quality vinyl can feel rounder and more 3d than a high quality digital recording.</p></div><p>poppycock, any attempt to label an audio format as poorer because it uses 'discrete bits'  (aka a digital distribution) rather than an analogue format is just deluded, and misrepresents the science of audio</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with any digital format is the that the sound is broken up into discrete bits .
Even a lower quality vinyl can feel rounder and more 3d than a high quality digital recording.poppycock , any attempt to label an audio format as poorer because it uses 'discrete bits ' ( aka a digital distribution ) rather than an analogue format is just deluded , and misrepresents the science of audio</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with any digital format is the that the sound is broken up into discrete bits.
Even a lower quality vinyl can feel rounder and more 3d than a high quality digital recording.poppycock, any attempt to label an audio format as poorer because it uses 'discrete bits'  (aka a digital distribution) rather than an analogue format is just deluded, and misrepresents the science of audio
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30189214</id>
	<title>Unscientific test</title>
	<author>YaddaMinski</author>
	<datestamp>1258807740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First was the hearing acuity of the test subjects tested?  Maybe most had hearing damage from blasting the ear buds.  Then was demanding music samples used?  Plus was the test subject intelligent and a music lover that knows what good sound is.  For example, many vinyl fan-boys that insist analogue albums sound better than the CD do not realize that the "warm" they like is actually distortion from the needle rumbling in the record groove.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First was the hearing acuity of the test subjects tested ?
Maybe most had hearing damage from blasting the ear buds .
Then was demanding music samples used ?
Plus was the test subject intelligent and a music lover that knows what good sound is .
For example , many vinyl fan-boys that insist analogue albums sound better than the CD do not realize that the " warm " they like is actually distortion from the needle rumbling in the record groove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First was the hearing acuity of the test subjects tested?
Maybe most had hearing damage from blasting the ear buds.
Then was demanding music samples used?
Plus was the test subject intelligent and a music lover that knows what good sound is.
For example, many vinyl fan-boys that insist analogue albums sound better than the CD do not realize that the "warm" they like is actually distortion from the needle rumbling in the record groove.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141832</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1257078840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You assume someone is going to use a new portable device. A lot of people are at the least, using devices from last year, or the year before. We quickly end up with only being able to assume 1-4GB of storage and many portable devices are not music players only - that storage has to allow apps and photos as well. Personally, I have 1GB micro-SD in my mobile phone, and using about half of that for music, I can fit just over a half-dozen albums as compressed MP3s - sure I don't need that much for a single trip as such, but I'm not going to selectively load music before every journey - instead it's easier to have a couple of albums, and then just occasionally dump some I'm bored with and load a couple of new ones.</p><p>I am considering switching to a less reliable mobile network to get the new subscriber bonus of a "free" (18 month contract at 20 euro pm) nice new phone with GPS and everything. Thing is, it will still have MicroSD (don't know that it even allows HC) but it will have a 5 megapixel camera compared to the 3 mp camera I currently have - so even more storage required for photos. Also this new phone can have apps loaded - so I may use more storage for that too. So even getting a higher capacity card, I think it is doubtful I'll be using less compressed music.</p><p>As for hard drives - I still need all the gigabytes I have for games - and with a laptop - even if I cared to throw over 100 euro at boring hard drive storage upgrade, I'd only double my capacity from 80 GB to 160 GB. The terabyte drive while reasonably good value, is desktop only - and I use my desktop infrequently now (just a couple of big-box newer games where I can't turn down the settings enough for my laptop - although more and more I'm turning to direct-release games that are cheap and run on a laptop - and indeed take up megabytes not gigabytes).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume someone is going to use a new portable device .
A lot of people are at the least , using devices from last year , or the year before .
We quickly end up with only being able to assume 1-4GB of storage and many portable devices are not music players only - that storage has to allow apps and photos as well .
Personally , I have 1GB micro-SD in my mobile phone , and using about half of that for music , I can fit just over a half-dozen albums as compressed MP3s - sure I do n't need that much for a single trip as such , but I 'm not going to selectively load music before every journey - instead it 's easier to have a couple of albums , and then just occasionally dump some I 'm bored with and load a couple of new ones.I am considering switching to a less reliable mobile network to get the new subscriber bonus of a " free " ( 18 month contract at 20 euro pm ) nice new phone with GPS and everything .
Thing is , it will still have MicroSD ( do n't know that it even allows HC ) but it will have a 5 megapixel camera compared to the 3 mp camera I currently have - so even more storage required for photos .
Also this new phone can have apps loaded - so I may use more storage for that too .
So even getting a higher capacity card , I think it is doubtful I 'll be using less compressed music.As for hard drives - I still need all the gigabytes I have for games - and with a laptop - even if I cared to throw over 100 euro at boring hard drive storage upgrade , I 'd only double my capacity from 80 GB to 160 GB .
The terabyte drive while reasonably good value , is desktop only - and I use my desktop infrequently now ( just a couple of big-box newer games where I ca n't turn down the settings enough for my laptop - although more and more I 'm turning to direct-release games that are cheap and run on a laptop - and indeed take up megabytes not gigabytes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume someone is going to use a new portable device.
A lot of people are at the least, using devices from last year, or the year before.
We quickly end up with only being able to assume 1-4GB of storage and many portable devices are not music players only - that storage has to allow apps and photos as well.
Personally, I have 1GB micro-SD in my mobile phone, and using about half of that for music, I can fit just over a half-dozen albums as compressed MP3s - sure I don't need that much for a single trip as such, but I'm not going to selectively load music before every journey - instead it's easier to have a couple of albums, and then just occasionally dump some I'm bored with and load a couple of new ones.I am considering switching to a less reliable mobile network to get the new subscriber bonus of a "free" (18 month contract at 20 euro pm) nice new phone with GPS and everything.
Thing is, it will still have MicroSD (don't know that it even allows HC) but it will have a 5 megapixel camera compared to the 3 mp camera I currently have - so even more storage required for photos.
Also this new phone can have apps loaded - so I may use more storage for that too.
So even getting a higher capacity card, I think it is doubtful I'll be using less compressed music.As for hard drives - I still need all the gigabytes I have for games - and with a laptop - even if I cared to throw over 100 euro at boring hard drive storage upgrade, I'd only double my capacity from 80 GB to 160 GB.
The terabyte drive while reasonably good value, is desktop only - and I use my desktop infrequently now (just a couple of big-box newer games where I can't turn down the settings enough for my laptop - although more and more I'm turning to direct-release games that are cheap and run on a laptop - and indeed take up megabytes not gigabytes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143828</id>
	<title>Re:Ya this was a horrible test</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flac vs mp3 thing will live on for many more years.</p><p>Back when I had maybe 60 gig total in HD it was a big deal for my collection (500+ cds).  That would have been about 150 gig.  Not a huge burden these days on my computer.  But I sure as hell am not going thru that process again any time soon so I can eek out that extra nuanced thing out of some cd that was compressed in the first place...</p><p>My method when I did this was take 1 CD I know pretty good.  Try all the bit rates/compression types.  Take the one that least sounded like crap and go up one notch.  Think I picked 192 as the 'cut off' for me where I could tell the difference between two back to back listens.  Then I went up to 240 VBR with joint stero.</p><p>The real problem is portable these days (the reason for MP3 in the first place).  Still has players that top out at 120 gig.  So my CD collection in flac will not fit anyway.  So at this time it is not worth doing.  I do not have to 'manage' my collection.  I just need to remember my player...</p><p>I am using mp3 just out of a sense of inertia.  If there are errors I have the original CD anyway...  I can think of the past 9 or so years I have been doing this maybe 3 CDs that I had to go back and rerip, and those had quite a bit of damage on them anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flac vs mp3 thing will live on for many more years.Back when I had maybe 60 gig total in HD it was a big deal for my collection ( 500 + cds ) .
That would have been about 150 gig .
Not a huge burden these days on my computer .
But I sure as hell am not going thru that process again any time soon so I can eek out that extra nuanced thing out of some cd that was compressed in the first place...My method when I did this was take 1 CD I know pretty good .
Try all the bit rates/compression types .
Take the one that least sounded like crap and go up one notch .
Think I picked 192 as the 'cut off ' for me where I could tell the difference between two back to back listens .
Then I went up to 240 VBR with joint stero.The real problem is portable these days ( the reason for MP3 in the first place ) .
Still has players that top out at 120 gig .
So my CD collection in flac will not fit anyway .
So at this time it is not worth doing .
I do not have to 'manage ' my collection .
I just need to remember my player...I am using mp3 just out of a sense of inertia .
If there are errors I have the original CD anyway... I can think of the past 9 or so years I have been doing this maybe 3 CDs that I had to go back and rerip , and those had quite a bit of damage on them anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flac vs mp3 thing will live on for many more years.Back when I had maybe 60 gig total in HD it was a big deal for my collection (500+ cds).
That would have been about 150 gig.
Not a huge burden these days on my computer.
But I sure as hell am not going thru that process again any time soon so I can eek out that extra nuanced thing out of some cd that was compressed in the first place...My method when I did this was take 1 CD I know pretty good.
Try all the bit rates/compression types.
Take the one that least sounded like crap and go up one notch.
Think I picked 192 as the 'cut off' for me where I could tell the difference between two back to back listens.
Then I went up to 240 VBR with joint stero.The real problem is portable these days (the reason for MP3 in the first place).
Still has players that top out at 120 gig.
So my CD collection in flac will not fit anyway.
So at this time it is not worth doing.
I do not have to 'manage' my collection.
I just need to remember my player...I am using mp3 just out of a sense of inertia.
If there are errors I have the original CD anyway...  I can think of the past 9 or so years I have been doing this maybe 3 CDs that I had to go back and rerip, and those had quite a bit of damage on them anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145940</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Peron</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest. With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.</p></div><p>True, but they would sound the same on an analog turntable as well.</p><p>What separates a sawtooth wave and a square wave from a sine wave, is their harmonics. While a sine wave have no harmonics, a sawtooth wave and a square wave can be decomposed into a superposition of sine waves whos frequencies are integer multiples of their fundamental frequencies. Hence, the second harmonics of the square and sawtooth waves are at 30kHz, way above the limit for what we can hear.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile , a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest .
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave , a square wave , or a sawtooth wave ; all will sound exactly the same.True , but they would sound the same on an analog turntable as well.What separates a sawtooth wave and a square wave from a sine wave , is their harmonics .
While a sine wave have no harmonics , a sawtooth wave and a square wave can be decomposed into a superposition of sine waves whos frequencies are integer multiples of their fundamental frequencies .
Hence , the second harmonics of the square and sawtooth waves are at 30kHz , way above the limit for what we can hear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile, a 15 khz tone on a CD has three samples per crest.
With three samples there is no way to diffrentiate between a sine wave, a square wave, or a sawtooth wave; all will sound exactly the same.True, but they would sound the same on an analog turntable as well.What separates a sawtooth wave and a square wave from a sine wave, is their harmonics.
While a sine wave have no harmonics, a sawtooth wave and a square wave can be decomposed into a superposition of sine waves whos frequencies are integer multiples of their fundamental frequencies.
Hence, the second harmonics of the square and sawtooth waves are at 30kHz, way above the limit for what we can hear.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140130</id>
	<title>Re:It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1258482960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Hi-hats or any other cymbal, bells, glockenspiels, etc., all sound like shit in anything below 256. I can't describe the distortion other than to say it sounds hissy. Go ahead, listen to ANY Police tunes in low bitrate. I defy you to not cringe at how MP3 ruins Stuart Copeland's percussion.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Yep.  Whenever I get a chance (sadly, not very often), I put on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006GO9Q?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=bfc03-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=B00006GO9Q" title="amazon.com">In a Silent Way</a> [amazon.com] in a dark room to chill.  I tried the mp3 from a DVD player, an iPod, and a Sansa Clip - all were missing the brilliant cymbal dynamics.  Put the CD in the (el cheapo) DVD player, and the magic was back.</p><p>I bet you're right, "Message in a Bottle" wouldn't stand up either.</p><p>Granted, I have decent speakers and I wouldn't care in a car.</p><p>And we're old guys who know what CD's sound like.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi-hats or any other cymbal , bells , glockenspiels , etc. , all sound like shit in anything below 256 .
I ca n't describe the distortion other than to say it sounds hissy .
Go ahead , listen to ANY Police tunes in low bitrate .
I defy you to not cringe at how MP3 ruins Stuart Copeland 's percussion .
Yep. Whenever I get a chance ( sadly , not very often ) , I put on In a Silent Way [ amazon.com ] in a dark room to chill .
I tried the mp3 from a DVD player , an iPod , and a Sansa Clip - all were missing the brilliant cymbal dynamics .
Put the CD in the ( el cheapo ) DVD player , and the magic was back.I bet you 're right , " Message in a Bottle " would n't stand up either.Granted , I have decent speakers and I would n't care in a car.And we 're old guys who know what CD 's sound like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hi-hats or any other cymbal, bells, glockenspiels, etc., all sound like shit in anything below 256.
I can't describe the distortion other than to say it sounds hissy.
Go ahead, listen to ANY Police tunes in low bitrate.
I defy you to not cringe at how MP3 ruins Stuart Copeland's percussion.
Yep.  Whenever I get a chance (sadly, not very often), I put on In a Silent Way [amazon.com] in a dark room to chill.
I tried the mp3 from a DVD player, an iPod, and a Sansa Clip - all were missing the brilliant cymbal dynamics.
Put the CD in the (el cheapo) DVD player, and the magic was back.I bet you're right, "Message in a Bottle" wouldn't stand up either.Granted, I have decent speakers and I wouldn't care in a car.And we're old guys who know what CD's sound like.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141882</id>
	<title>What size listening space is being used?</title>
	<author>zuki</author>
	<datestamp>1257079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I would tend to agree with the opinions already expressed that:<ul>
<li>by now people have become so used to MP3 'sizzle' artifacts that they think it is part of the music, and have started preferring it to the cleaner original sounds.</li><li>it takes someone working in the studio or with an extremely keen ear listening on reference-grade monitoring to detect the artifacts in the compressed versions</li></ul><p>

I find it really disturbing that no one ever brings up the fact that <b>these results will vary widely depending on the size of the listening space</b>.<br>
While my own experience is that at home (Genelec 1031A, Shure EC530 in-ear monitors, etc..) or in a small studio it is somewhat difficult to pick those<br>
differences out, as soon as the same test is conducted in a larger acoustic space, they jump out to the point that it is obscene and hard to ignore.<br> <br>

As I have already said many times in previous posts here, we can sit here and argue all day long about which looks better on our laptop's LCD monitor, a 65 Kbytes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.jpg <br>
or a 82 Meg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tiff file of the same photo. Yet when we take these same two files and print them at 5' x 12' billboard size, the jpg file will appear so grossly grainy and pixelated,<br>
while the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.tiff file will maintain a much more coherent presentation of what the original picture looked like.<br> <br>
In other words, large-scale sound systems tend to act as magnifiers for these minute artifacts and differences which lossy audio compression introduces, and there is no<br>
question in my mind that when the same tests are performed in an auditorium or a reasonably anechoic concert hall (<i>in open air even better because no reflections</i>) it<br>
does immediately become quite apparent how much the lossy encoding process actually messes with the information.<br> <br>
It is not merely a function of frequency response, distortion and other lab specs, rather a more fundamental one of the poorly-understood characteristics that give music its<br>
inner dynamic, the 'punch' in the low frequencies, the cleanliness in the top end and tails of reverbs, as well as many times the resultant waveforms of many combined<br>
harmonic sounds in the midrange, probably a bit more so on acoutic instruments, but not always necessarily so.<br> <br>
I would welcome similar tests done on a reasonable sound reinforcement rig, like a typical line array system with 50,000 watts of power in a room which can accommodate<br>
1,500 people, a pretty standard setup for concerts and DJ gigs. (keeping in mind that in such systems there is a digital processor in the chain through which the sound will pass)<br> <br>

There are much deeper implications to this, such as the fact that vinyl and open-reel <i>while flawed to some extent</i> still offer the human ear a much smoother experience<br>
in acoustic spaces of that size, as CD and DVD players do a very poor job of reconstituting the the 'slices' of digital audio after D/A conversion, yes great master clocking will <br>
make the signal sound more bearable, but there is a continuity between the waveforms which analog seems to do much better than most digital systems ever can at the sampling <br>
rates they are currently working at, and which I am sad to report haven't really changed a lot since 1981 when the CD spec was developed, SACD being a step in the right direction.<br> <br>

That these older analog formats are not even included in the tests means pretty much the equivalent of the one-eyed man being crowned the leader of the kingdom of the blind.<br>
Which is why to this day, many of the top professional DJs insist on playing from analog sources such as vinyl, which while they have certain inconvenient artifacts of their own, do offer<br>
something else that the human ear craves for, and is really keenly attuned to: continuity of sound, and the smoothness of a natural waveform. This effect is clearly demonstrated by making<br>
an high-quality open-reel tape copy of a CD, and playing the two side-to-s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I would tend to agree with the opinions already expressed that : by now people have become so used to MP3 'sizzle ' artifacts that they think it is part of the music , and have started preferring it to the cleaner original sounds.it takes someone working in the studio or with an extremely keen ear listening on reference-grade monitoring to detect the artifacts in the compressed versions I find it really disturbing that no one ever brings up the fact that these results will vary widely depending on the size of the listening space .
While my own experience is that at home ( Genelec 1031A , Shure EC530 in-ear monitors , etc.. ) or in a small studio it is somewhat difficult to pick those differences out , as soon as the same test is conducted in a larger acoustic space , they jump out to the point that it is obscene and hard to ignore .
As I have already said many times in previous posts here , we can sit here and argue all day long about which looks better on our laptop 's LCD monitor , a 65 Kbytes .jpg or a 82 Meg .tiff file of the same photo .
Yet when we take these same two files and print them at 5 ' x 12 ' billboard size , the jpg file will appear so grossly grainy and pixelated , while the .tiff file will maintain a much more coherent presentation of what the original picture looked like .
In other words , large-scale sound systems tend to act as magnifiers for these minute artifacts and differences which lossy audio compression introduces , and there is no question in my mind that when the same tests are performed in an auditorium or a reasonably anechoic concert hall ( in open air even better because no reflections ) it does immediately become quite apparent how much the lossy encoding process actually messes with the information .
It is not merely a function of frequency response , distortion and other lab specs , rather a more fundamental one of the poorly-understood characteristics that give music its inner dynamic , the 'punch ' in the low frequencies , the cleanliness in the top end and tails of reverbs , as well as many times the resultant waveforms of many combined harmonic sounds in the midrange , probably a bit more so on acoutic instruments , but not always necessarily so .
I would welcome similar tests done on a reasonable sound reinforcement rig , like a typical line array system with 50,000 watts of power in a room which can accommodate 1,500 people , a pretty standard setup for concerts and DJ gigs .
( keeping in mind that in such systems there is a digital processor in the chain through which the sound will pass ) There are much deeper implications to this , such as the fact that vinyl and open-reel while flawed to some extent still offer the human ear a much smoother experience in acoustic spaces of that size , as CD and DVD players do a very poor job of reconstituting the the 'slices ' of digital audio after D/A conversion , yes great master clocking will make the signal sound more bearable , but there is a continuity between the waveforms which analog seems to do much better than most digital systems ever can at the sampling rates they are currently working at , and which I am sad to report have n't really changed a lot since 1981 when the CD spec was developed , SACD being a step in the right direction .
That these older analog formats are not even included in the tests means pretty much the equivalent of the one-eyed man being crowned the leader of the kingdom of the blind .
Which is why to this day , many of the top professional DJs insist on playing from analog sources such as vinyl , which while they have certain inconvenient artifacts of their own , do offer something else that the human ear craves for , and is really keenly attuned to : continuity of sound , and the smoothness of a natural waveform .
This effect is clearly demonstrated by making an high-quality open-reel tape copy of a CD , and playing the two side-to-s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I would tend to agree with the opinions already expressed that:
by now people have become so used to MP3 'sizzle' artifacts that they think it is part of the music, and have started preferring it to the cleaner original sounds.it takes someone working in the studio or with an extremely keen ear listening on reference-grade monitoring to detect the artifacts in the compressed versions

I find it really disturbing that no one ever brings up the fact that these results will vary widely depending on the size of the listening space.
While my own experience is that at home (Genelec 1031A, Shure EC530 in-ear monitors, etc..) or in a small studio it is somewhat difficult to pick those
differences out, as soon as the same test is conducted in a larger acoustic space, they jump out to the point that it is obscene and hard to ignore.
As I have already said many times in previous posts here, we can sit here and argue all day long about which looks better on our laptop's LCD monitor, a 65 Kbytes .jpg 
or a 82 Meg .tiff file of the same photo.
Yet when we take these same two files and print them at 5' x 12' billboard size, the jpg file will appear so grossly grainy and pixelated,
while the .tiff file will maintain a much more coherent presentation of what the original picture looked like.
In other words, large-scale sound systems tend to act as magnifiers for these minute artifacts and differences which lossy audio compression introduces, and there is no
question in my mind that when the same tests are performed in an auditorium or a reasonably anechoic concert hall (in open air even better because no reflections) it
does immediately become quite apparent how much the lossy encoding process actually messes with the information.
It is not merely a function of frequency response, distortion and other lab specs, rather a more fundamental one of the poorly-understood characteristics that give music its
inner dynamic, the 'punch' in the low frequencies, the cleanliness in the top end and tails of reverbs, as well as many times the resultant waveforms of many combined
harmonic sounds in the midrange, probably a bit more so on acoutic instruments, but not always necessarily so.
I would welcome similar tests done on a reasonable sound reinforcement rig, like a typical line array system with 50,000 watts of power in a room which can accommodate
1,500 people, a pretty standard setup for concerts and DJ gigs.
(keeping in mind that in such systems there is a digital processor in the chain through which the sound will pass) 

There are much deeper implications to this, such as the fact that vinyl and open-reel while flawed to some extent still offer the human ear a much smoother experience
in acoustic spaces of that size, as CD and DVD players do a very poor job of reconstituting the the 'slices' of digital audio after D/A conversion, yes great master clocking will 
make the signal sound more bearable, but there is a continuity between the waveforms which analog seems to do much better than most digital systems ever can at the sampling 
rates they are currently working at, and which I am sad to report haven't really changed a lot since 1981 when the CD spec was developed, SACD being a step in the right direction.
That these older analog formats are not even included in the tests means pretty much the equivalent of the one-eyed man being crowned the leader of the kingdom of the blind.
Which is why to this day, many of the top professional DJs insist on playing from analog sources such as vinyl, which while they have certain inconvenient artifacts of their own, do offer
something else that the human ear craves for, and is really keenly attuned to: continuity of sound, and the smoothness of a natural waveform.
This effect is clearly demonstrated by making
an high-quality open-reel tape copy of a CD, and playing the two side-to-s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147270</id>
	<title>Bad Headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the article said was that most of THEM couldn't tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the article said was that most of THEM could n't tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the article said was that most of THEM couldn't tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142280</id>
	<title>They should make 2 mixes</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257084180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of the comments point-out the compression that makes everything seem equally loud, which is done to make it sound good on consumer-grade audio equipment.  Maybe it is time to release two mixes: one for consumer grade, where the volume is maximized for the duration of the song, and another that is meant for high-end audio use that preserves the levels.  Or even a new format that combines both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the comments point-out the compression that makes everything seem equally loud , which is done to make it sound good on consumer-grade audio equipment .
Maybe it is time to release two mixes : one for consumer grade , where the volume is maximized for the duration of the song , and another that is meant for high-end audio use that preserves the levels .
Or even a new format that combines both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the comments point-out the compression that makes everything seem equally loud, which is done to make it sound good on consumer-grade audio equipment.
Maybe it is time to release two mixes: one for consumer grade, where the volume is maximized for the duration of the song, and another that is meant for high-end audio use that preserves the levels.
Or even a new format that combines both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142738</id>
	<title>Not all about sound</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1257087540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, eventually it is.</p><p>But the point is, what happens when the next great encoding scheme comes along, and the only copies of your music you have are compressed?</p><p>I refuse to pay for lossy compressed music.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , eventually it is.But the point is , what happens when the next great encoding scheme comes along , and the only copies of your music you have are compressed ? I refuse to pay for lossy compressed music .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, eventually it is.But the point is, what happens when the next great encoding scheme comes along, and the only copies of your music you have are compressed?I refuse to pay for lossy compressed music.
Period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224</id>
	<title>It depends on the music.</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1258475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With most real music (as in not coming out of a sequencer with the highs already filtered out), yes, you can tell if your upper frequency hearing is toasted by too many rock concerts.  You can tell most definitely with some specific songs that sound like crap even in the vocal range if it's lossy ("Sad To See the Season Go" by Cowboy Junkies, in particular).</p><p>Hi-hats or any other cymbal, bells, glockenspiels, etc., all sound like shit in anything below 256.  I can't describe the distortion other than to say it sounds hissy.  Go ahead, listen to ANY Police tunes in low bitrate.  I defy you to not cringe at how MP3 ruins Stuart Copeland's percussion.</p><p>The only music that doesn't suffer badly from mp3's lossy distortion is electronica and its related genres.  Erasure sounds just fine at 192.</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With most real music ( as in not coming out of a sequencer with the highs already filtered out ) , yes , you can tell if your upper frequency hearing is toasted by too many rock concerts .
You can tell most definitely with some specific songs that sound like crap even in the vocal range if it 's lossy ( " Sad To See the Season Go " by Cowboy Junkies , in particular ) .Hi-hats or any other cymbal , bells , glockenspiels , etc. , all sound like shit in anything below 256 .
I ca n't describe the distortion other than to say it sounds hissy .
Go ahead , listen to ANY Police tunes in low bitrate .
I defy you to not cringe at how MP3 ruins Stuart Copeland 's percussion.The only music that does n't suffer badly from mp3 's lossy distortion is electronica and its related genres .
Erasure sounds just fine at 192.--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With most real music (as in not coming out of a sequencer with the highs already filtered out), yes, you can tell if your upper frequency hearing is toasted by too many rock concerts.
You can tell most definitely with some specific songs that sound like crap even in the vocal range if it's lossy ("Sad To See the Season Go" by Cowboy Junkies, in particular).Hi-hats or any other cymbal, bells, glockenspiels, etc., all sound like shit in anything below 256.
I can't describe the distortion other than to say it sounds hissy.
Go ahead, listen to ANY Police tunes in low bitrate.
I defy you to not cringe at how MP3 ruins Stuart Copeland's percussion.The only music that doesn't suffer badly from mp3's lossy distortion is electronica and its related genres.
Erasure sounds just fine at 192.--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139408</id>
	<title>Lossy Compression reduces noise</title>
	<author>atomicstrawberry</author>
	<datestamp>1258476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MP3 compression is, at least as far as I know, based off the same algorithms we use for lossy image compression in schemes like JPEG. Essentially we take blocks of the data, whether it is visual or aural, and we apply a transform function to it. In JPEG this is a Discrete Cosine Transform, I'm not sure about MP3 but I imagine it's a very similar transform, adapted for sound.</p><p>The transform function changes the values of the data in the block, essentially separating them by how 'noisy' they are. Then we throw away the noisiest components of the transformed data, because these are least likely to contain 'information' content - where in the audio case, information is the actual sound. If you take too much away, you can eat away some of the information as well as the noise, which in the case of audio will introduce degradation and a loss of the richness and texture of the sound. However if you take away a smaller amount, the bulk of what you're throwing away is not interesting or useful.</p><p>FLAC by comparison is lossless compression. All that noise in the sound is preserved. However a lossy-compressed copy of the same audio may sound 'better' to our ears because some of that extra noise has been eliminated by the compression. The same phenomenon has been observed with images. Sometimes perceived image quality can actually be improved by lossy compression. It's a side-effect of the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MP3 compression is , at least as far as I know , based off the same algorithms we use for lossy image compression in schemes like JPEG .
Essentially we take blocks of the data , whether it is visual or aural , and we apply a transform function to it .
In JPEG this is a Discrete Cosine Transform , I 'm not sure about MP3 but I imagine it 's a very similar transform , adapted for sound.The transform function changes the values of the data in the block , essentially separating them by how 'noisy ' they are .
Then we throw away the noisiest components of the transformed data , because these are least likely to contain 'information ' content - where in the audio case , information is the actual sound .
If you take too much away , you can eat away some of the information as well as the noise , which in the case of audio will introduce degradation and a loss of the richness and texture of the sound .
However if you take away a smaller amount , the bulk of what you 're throwing away is not interesting or useful.FLAC by comparison is lossless compression .
All that noise in the sound is preserved .
However a lossy-compressed copy of the same audio may sound 'better ' to our ears because some of that extra noise has been eliminated by the compression .
The same phenomenon has been observed with images .
Sometimes perceived image quality can actually be improved by lossy compression .
It 's a side-effect of the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MP3 compression is, at least as far as I know, based off the same algorithms we use for lossy image compression in schemes like JPEG.
Essentially we take blocks of the data, whether it is visual or aural, and we apply a transform function to it.
In JPEG this is a Discrete Cosine Transform, I'm not sure about MP3 but I imagine it's a very similar transform, adapted for sound.The transform function changes the values of the data in the block, essentially separating them by how 'noisy' they are.
Then we throw away the noisiest components of the transformed data, because these are least likely to contain 'information' content - where in the audio case, information is the actual sound.
If you take too much away, you can eat away some of the information as well as the noise, which in the case of audio will introduce degradation and a loss of the richness and texture of the sound.
However if you take away a smaller amount, the bulk of what you're throwing away is not interesting or useful.FLAC by comparison is lossless compression.
All that noise in the sound is preserved.
However a lossy-compressed copy of the same audio may sound 'better' to our ears because some of that extra noise has been eliminated by the compression.
The same phenomenon has been observed with images.
Sometimes perceived image quality can actually be improved by lossy compression.
It's a side-effect of the process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139118</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Knightman</author>
	<datestamp>1258475100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I kinda find it funny that you need to have adblock and flashblock to visit a site named TrustedReviews so your browser doesn't go into a tailspin...  It's like having Sid Fernwilter smile at you and say "Trust me!"</p><p>Anyway, 192kbps MP3's is good enough for most people so I don't really see the point with FLAC unless you are an audiophile which means you don't touch encoded/compressed music anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I kinda find it funny that you need to have adblock and flashblock to visit a site named TrustedReviews so your browser does n't go into a tailspin... It 's like having Sid Fernwilter smile at you and say " Trust me !
" Anyway , 192kbps MP3 's is good enough for most people so I do n't really see the point with FLAC unless you are an audiophile which means you do n't touch encoded/compressed music anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I kinda find it funny that you need to have adblock and flashblock to visit a site named TrustedReviews so your browser doesn't go into a tailspin...  It's like having Sid Fernwilter smile at you and say "Trust me!
"Anyway, 192kbps MP3's is good enough for most people so I don't really see the point with FLAC unless you are an audiophile which means you don't touch encoded/compressed music anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139164</id>
	<title>MP3s, perceptual coding and a little test</title>
	<author>mixed\_signal</author>
	<datestamp>1258475340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>MPEG 1 layer 3 (MP3) encoding was designed as a 'perceptual encoding' algorithm where less "effort" (fewer bits) is given to signals that fall below below a threshold based on the other signals present.  For example, a quiet tone close in frequency to a loud tone cannot be heard by the human ear, so no effort needs to be expended on reproducing it.  All we're debating is whether the engineering behind this is sufficient.  Certainly at lower encoding rates the distortion characteristics get very weird, though, and not at all like degraded quantization noise or analog distortion (Try it for yourself...)


A few years back I decided to perform a little test one time to see how 192kbps MP3s performed.  A self-avowed audiophile friend of mine lent me a copy of one of his favorite "reference" recordings (a Diana Krall jazz CD), and decided to give him a little test.  I ripped his 'reference' song to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav, encoded to 192kbps MP3, decoded the MP3 back to a second<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav file and burned a new CD for him.


He couldn't tell the difference much at all, and actually thought the one that had been through the processing sounded a little better.  I couldn't tell any real difference on my studio monitors either.

MP3 is certainly good enough, at least at 192kbps, for portable use and on any 'normal' home system.  I'd be interested to hear of any other opinions from similar tests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MPEG 1 layer 3 ( MP3 ) encoding was designed as a 'perceptual encoding ' algorithm where less " effort " ( fewer bits ) is given to signals that fall below below a threshold based on the other signals present .
For example , a quiet tone close in frequency to a loud tone can not be heard by the human ear , so no effort needs to be expended on reproducing it .
All we 're debating is whether the engineering behind this is sufficient .
Certainly at lower encoding rates the distortion characteristics get very weird , though , and not at all like degraded quantization noise or analog distortion ( Try it for yourself... ) A few years back I decided to perform a little test one time to see how 192kbps MP3s performed .
A self-avowed audiophile friend of mine lent me a copy of one of his favorite " reference " recordings ( a Diana Krall jazz CD ) , and decided to give him a little test .
I ripped his 'reference ' song to .wav , encoded to 192kbps MP3 , decoded the MP3 back to a second .wav file and burned a new CD for him .
He could n't tell the difference much at all , and actually thought the one that had been through the processing sounded a little better .
I could n't tell any real difference on my studio monitors either .
MP3 is certainly good enough , at least at 192kbps , for portable use and on any 'normal ' home system .
I 'd be interested to hear of any other opinions from similar tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPEG 1 layer 3 (MP3) encoding was designed as a 'perceptual encoding' algorithm where less "effort" (fewer bits) is given to signals that fall below below a threshold based on the other signals present.
For example, a quiet tone close in frequency to a loud tone cannot be heard by the human ear, so no effort needs to be expended on reproducing it.
All we're debating is whether the engineering behind this is sufficient.
Certainly at lower encoding rates the distortion characteristics get very weird, though, and not at all like degraded quantization noise or analog distortion (Try it for yourself...)


A few years back I decided to perform a little test one time to see how 192kbps MP3s performed.
A self-avowed audiophile friend of mine lent me a copy of one of his favorite "reference" recordings (a Diana Krall jazz CD), and decided to give him a little test.
I ripped his 'reference' song to .wav, encoded to 192kbps MP3, decoded the MP3 back to a second .wav file and burned a new CD for him.
He couldn't tell the difference much at all, and actually thought the one that had been through the processing sounded a little better.
I couldn't tell any real difference on my studio monitors either.
MP3 is certainly good enough, at least at 192kbps, for portable use and on any 'normal' home system.
I'd be interested to hear of any other opinions from similar tests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142130</id>
	<title>Re:will someone come up with a definitive test?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1257082560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hydrogenaudio community gives just that, basically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogenaudio community gives just that , basically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydrogenaudio community gives just that, basically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139458</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the recommendation on autopager! Just got it and I love it already! I don't know how I didn't know about this before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the recommendation on autopager !
Just got it and I love it already !
I do n't know how I did n't know about this before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the recommendation on autopager!
Just got it and I love it already!
I don't know how I didn't know about this before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144678</id>
	<title>Re:will someone come up with a definitive test?</title>
	<author>nelsonal</author>
	<datestamp>1257095280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with this is it's heavily dependant on the speakers that the listener is using.  On this computer there's a 1" bar under the monitor that provides all the sound output from this computer.  I'd suspect that I'd be running 50\% on that test, but if I go home to where I have digital connections from the sound card to my Dennon simply the addtion of a subwoofer would probably be enough to tip me off (low bit rate MP3s cut off at about my sub's cut off so that's a big clue).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this is it 's heavily dependant on the speakers that the listener is using .
On this computer there 's a 1 " bar under the monitor that provides all the sound output from this computer .
I 'd suspect that I 'd be running 50 \ % on that test , but if I go home to where I have digital connections from the sound card to my Dennon simply the addtion of a subwoofer would probably be enough to tip me off ( low bit rate MP3s cut off at about my sub 's cut off so that 's a big clue ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this is it's heavily dependant on the speakers that the listener is using.
On this computer there's a 1" bar under the monitor that provides all the sound output from this computer.
I'd suspect that I'd be running 50\% on that test, but if I go home to where I have digital connections from the sound card to my Dennon simply the addtion of a subwoofer would probably be enough to tip me off (low bit rate MP3s cut off at about my sub's cut off so that's a big clue).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141574</id>
	<title>Re:Misses part of the point</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1257075780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I was thinking - a better test would be comparing:</p><p>1. FLAC that has been transcoded to Vorbis<br>2. MP3 that has been transcoded to Vorbis<br>3. FLAC that has been transcoded to AAC<br>4. MP3 that has been transcoded to AAC<br>etc. for any other formats that you might want to change to.</p><p>I'm uncomfortable with accepting that first level of loss, when MP3 might not be the format that I want to keep my music in for ever. Sure, it's good enough now, it has wide support, and power consumption is good because a lot of devices have hardware decode for MP3 as against software decode for Vorbis. But what of the future? Will MP3 be the best choice for ever? I doubt it, so for the first encode, for long term storage of a "master" copy, FLAC may be worthwhile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I was thinking - a better test would be comparing : 1 .
FLAC that has been transcoded to Vorbis2 .
MP3 that has been transcoded to Vorbis3 .
FLAC that has been transcoded to AAC4 .
MP3 that has been transcoded to AACetc .
for any other formats that you might want to change to.I 'm uncomfortable with accepting that first level of loss , when MP3 might not be the format that I want to keep my music in for ever .
Sure , it 's good enough now , it has wide support , and power consumption is good because a lot of devices have hardware decode for MP3 as against software decode for Vorbis .
But what of the future ?
Will MP3 be the best choice for ever ?
I doubt it , so for the first encode , for long term storage of a " master " copy , FLAC may be worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I was thinking - a better test would be comparing:1.
FLAC that has been transcoded to Vorbis2.
MP3 that has been transcoded to Vorbis3.
FLAC that has been transcoded to AAC4.
MP3 that has been transcoded to AACetc.
for any other formats that you might want to change to.I'm uncomfortable with accepting that first level of loss, when MP3 might not be the format that I want to keep my music in for ever.
Sure, it's good enough now, it has wide support, and power consumption is good because a lot of devices have hardware decode for MP3 as against software decode for Vorbis.
But what of the future?
Will MP3 be the best choice for ever?
I doubt it, so for the first encode, for long term storage of a "master" copy, FLAC may be worthwhile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142474</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Crizp</author>
	<datestamp>1257085680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True. While only an anecdote, I have Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in 128 Kbps MP3, taken from a spotless first-issue LP and encoded by good ol' l3enc.exe; it sounds better than many newer albums encoded in a higher bitrate or FLAC. And while I could rip the CD reissue in FLAC I won't - there's a certain quality to that old rip. I think it's something with l3enc.</p><p>However, I won't say my 320 Kbps encode of the "Let it Bleed" CD sounds better than the FLAC rip of the SACD remaster I bought -- or any album recorded, mastered and released in pure digital 24/96 or higher.</p><p>Not that I care about noise either, as evidenced by the fact that I love listening to some early Phish shows recorded on bad quality MCs. The music, performance and basic mix is good so I ignore the hiss and flutter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
While only an anecdote , I have Pink Floyd 's " The Wall " in 128 Kbps MP3 , taken from a spotless first-issue LP and encoded by good ol ' l3enc.exe ; it sounds better than many newer albums encoded in a higher bitrate or FLAC .
And while I could rip the CD reissue in FLAC I wo n't - there 's a certain quality to that old rip .
I think it 's something with l3enc.However , I wo n't say my 320 Kbps encode of the " Let it Bleed " CD sounds better than the FLAC rip of the SACD remaster I bought -- or any album recorded , mastered and released in pure digital 24/96 or higher.Not that I care about noise either , as evidenced by the fact that I love listening to some early Phish shows recorded on bad quality MCs .
The music , performance and basic mix is good so I ignore the hiss and flutter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
While only an anecdote, I have Pink Floyd's "The Wall" in 128 Kbps MP3, taken from a spotless first-issue LP and encoded by good ol' l3enc.exe; it sounds better than many newer albums encoded in a higher bitrate or FLAC.
And while I could rip the CD reissue in FLAC I won't - there's a certain quality to that old rip.
I think it's something with l3enc.However, I won't say my 320 Kbps encode of the "Let it Bleed" CD sounds better than the FLAC rip of the SACD remaster I bought -- or any album recorded, mastered and released in pure digital 24/96 or higher.Not that I care about noise either, as evidenced by the fact that I love listening to some early Phish shows recorded on bad quality MCs.
The music, performance and basic mix is good so I ignore the hiss and flutter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30155432</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Know Nothin</title>
	<author>ozydingo</author>
	<datestamp>1258642320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you have two identical pieces of music [...] then the results will necessarily be perfectly random. [...].<br> <br>Conversely, if the results are not random, then the people could necessarily tell differences in them.</p></div><p>This is not the converse, this is the contrapositive (which is necessarily true if the original statement was true).  The converse illustrates the flaw in this test with regards to the question "is there a perceivable difference" -- If the results are random, this does <b>not</b> imply that the two pieces of music are perceptually identical. There could be a perceivable difference but no population-consistent preference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have two identical pieces of music [ ... ] then the results will necessarily be perfectly random .
[ ... ] . Conversely , if the results are not random , then the people could necessarily tell differences in them.This is not the converse , this is the contrapositive ( which is necessarily true if the original statement was true ) .
The converse illustrates the flaw in this test with regards to the question " is there a perceivable difference " -- If the results are random , this does not imply that the two pieces of music are perceptually identical .
There could be a perceivable difference but no population-consistent preference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have two identical pieces of music [...] then the results will necessarily be perfectly random.
[...]. Conversely, if the results are not random, then the people could necessarily tell differences in them.This is not the converse, this is the contrapositive (which is necessarily true if the original statement was true).
The converse illustrates the flaw in this test with regards to the question "is there a perceivable difference" -- If the results are random, this does not imply that the two pieces of music are perceptually identical.
There could be a perceivable difference but no population-consistent preference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056</id>
	<title>This is no surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music. Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion, their system is great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners can not discern excellent from mediocre music .
Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion , their system is great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles have known for decades that most listeners cannot discern excellent from mediocre music.
Most people think that if there is lots of bass and the music is loud without obvious distortion, their system is great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142950</id>
	<title>Re:You're accidentally correct</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1257088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that "over one thousand bucks Creek Audio CD player" better in sound quality than small, slow, passivelly cooled HTPC with bit-perfect (easily doable with Exact Audio Copy) FLAC copies of your CD collection and with output through bit-perfect digital out (costs <b>ten bucks</b>: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/</a> [google.com] )</p><p>(if your "amplifier" has good quality DAC, many of which do nowadays)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that " over one thousand bucks Creek Audio CD player " better in sound quality than small , slow , passivelly cooled HTPC with bit-perfect ( easily doable with Exact Audio Copy ) FLAC copies of your CD collection and with output through bit-perfect digital out ( costs ten bucks : http : //code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/ [ google.com ] ) ( if your " amplifier " has good quality DAC , many of which do nowadays )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that "over one thousand bucks Creek Audio CD player" better in sound quality than small, slow, passivelly cooled HTPC with bit-perfect (easily doable with Exact Audio Copy) FLAC copies of your CD collection and with output through bit-perfect digital out (costs ten bucks: http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/ [google.com] )(if your "amplifier" has good quality DAC, many of which do nowadays)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1258475100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, absolutely. There is no doubt that the biggest problem, by far, is the upfront engineering, not the file format.  I have plenty of DDD CDs and other items where the digitization of the data involves essentially no loss - but are still terrible recordings that are painful to listen to.  Only when everything else it darn near ideal does the compression method/bit rate even become detectable. And the vast, vast majority of cases, and as far as I know never for any portable device, are the conditions ideal. A crappy 128K MP3 of a good performance with good engineering can be a joy.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The results are not at all surprising to me. And of course the "audiophile" community is "stuck on stupid" in some cases. ANYONE who thinks information recorded in  tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs (stylus, cartridge coils, tonearm, not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string (almost independent of bit rate) is deluding themselves.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , absolutely .
There is no doubt that the biggest problem , by far , is the upfront engineering , not the file format .
I have plenty of DDD CDs and other items where the digitization of the data involves essentially no loss - but are still terrible recordings that are painful to listen to .
Only when everything else it darn near ideal does the compression method/bit rate even become detectable .
And the vast , vast majority of cases , and as far as I know never for any portable device , are the conditions ideal .
A crappy 128K MP3 of a good performance with good engineering can be a joy .
    The results are not at all surprising to me .
And of course the " audiophile " community is " stuck on stupid " in some cases .
ANYONE who thinks information recorded in tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs ( stylus , cartridge coils , tonearm , not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself ) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string ( almost independent of bit rate ) is deluding themselves .
        Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, absolutely.
There is no doubt that the biggest problem, by far, is the upfront engineering, not the file format.
I have plenty of DDD CDs and other items where the digitization of the data involves essentially no loss - but are still terrible recordings that are painful to listen to.
Only when everything else it darn near ideal does the compression method/bit rate even become detectable.
And the vast, vast majority of cases, and as far as I know never for any portable device, are the conditions ideal.
A crappy 128K MP3 of a good performance with good engineering can be a joy.
    The results are not at all surprising to me.
And of course the "audiophile" community is "stuck on stupid" in some cases.
ANYONE who thinks information recorded in  tiny wiggles in groves and played through a bunch of springs (stylus, cartridge coils, tonearm, not to mention the non-trivial compliance of the record itself) and then amplified by two-three orders of magnitude is a more accurate representation than a full digital string (almost independent of bit rate) is deluding themselves.
        Brett</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140064</id>
	<title>Wrong</title>
	<author>Guiness Boy</author>
	<datestamp>1258482420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did my own test. I ripped a CD to both MP3 (192) and FLAC. I played both files through a Logitech Squeezebox connected to a Peachtree Audio Decco amp which was connected to a pair of Tannoy Revolution Signature DC4s.
I could clearly tell the difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did my own test .
I ripped a CD to both MP3 ( 192 ) and FLAC .
I played both files through a Logitech Squeezebox connected to a Peachtree Audio Decco amp which was connected to a pair of Tannoy Revolution Signature DC4s .
I could clearly tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did my own test.
I ripped a CD to both MP3 (192) and FLAC.
I played both files through a Logitech Squeezebox connected to a Peachtree Audio Decco amp which was connected to a pair of Tannoy Revolution Signature DC4s.
I could clearly tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139286</id>
	<title>Like any compression format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258476120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference will be content dependent.  It is also listener, location, and system dependent.  If you are currently listening to MP3's you will become acustomed to 'tuning out' the artifacts.  If you listen to predominantly lossless you will be more sensitive to the artifacts, but it still comes down to the actual content, the original mastering, and the playback system. Some material will simply compress with fewer artifacts than other material.  I have an extensive collection of both MP3 and the FLAC albums that they were sourced from.  Because the collections are identical, and because of the way that I use my playback environment (foobar) I don't always know which I am selecting.  I grab something by album cover, close my eyes, and listen.  I rarely look at the details. Sometimes it just doesn't matter, I have sat for hours listening without any knowledge of which library i am listening to, but occassionally an artifact will just jump out and 10/10 times when I check the file details I see that it is an mp3 (at 320kb VBR).   My hearing is ok,  but not exceptional, I do not claim to have golden ears, but I know the music I listen to.  I listen to a LOT of music on both a high end stereo (&gt; 20K$) which is driven digitally from a custom PC based system in another room to a high end DAC, and on high end headphones, as well as on my mp3 player (ipod touch), and the artifacts that I hear (typically problems with reproduction of high frequency sounds, sometimes something that is just wrong with the tone) is such an irritating thing that you cannot ignore it.  Can I hear it on all recordings 100\% of the time.. no way.  But on the right material I will pick it out every time.  But unless I am in my listening space (which is almost painfully quiet) I doubt I would even notice and I doubt most people who listen to earbuds or car audio as their primary environment could ever pick out the difference, its all a matter of what you are used to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference will be content dependent .
It is also listener , location , and system dependent .
If you are currently listening to MP3 's you will become acustomed to 'tuning out ' the artifacts .
If you listen to predominantly lossless you will be more sensitive to the artifacts , but it still comes down to the actual content , the original mastering , and the playback system .
Some material will simply compress with fewer artifacts than other material .
I have an extensive collection of both MP3 and the FLAC albums that they were sourced from .
Because the collections are identical , and because of the way that I use my playback environment ( foobar ) I do n't always know which I am selecting .
I grab something by album cover , close my eyes , and listen .
I rarely look at the details .
Sometimes it just does n't matter , I have sat for hours listening without any knowledge of which library i am listening to , but occassionally an artifact will just jump out and 10/10 times when I check the file details I see that it is an mp3 ( at 320kb VBR ) .
My hearing is ok , but not exceptional , I do not claim to have golden ears , but I know the music I listen to .
I listen to a LOT of music on both a high end stereo ( &gt; 20K $ ) which is driven digitally from a custom PC based system in another room to a high end DAC , and on high end headphones , as well as on my mp3 player ( ipod touch ) , and the artifacts that I hear ( typically problems with reproduction of high frequency sounds , sometimes something that is just wrong with the tone ) is such an irritating thing that you can not ignore it .
Can I hear it on all recordings 100 \ % of the time.. no way .
But on the right material I will pick it out every time .
But unless I am in my listening space ( which is almost painfully quiet ) I doubt I would even notice and I doubt most people who listen to earbuds or car audio as their primary environment could ever pick out the difference , its all a matter of what you are used to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference will be content dependent.
It is also listener, location, and system dependent.
If you are currently listening to MP3's you will become acustomed to 'tuning out' the artifacts.
If you listen to predominantly lossless you will be more sensitive to the artifacts, but it still comes down to the actual content, the original mastering, and the playback system.
Some material will simply compress with fewer artifacts than other material.
I have an extensive collection of both MP3 and the FLAC albums that they were sourced from.
Because the collections are identical, and because of the way that I use my playback environment (foobar) I don't always know which I am selecting.
I grab something by album cover, close my eyes, and listen.
I rarely look at the details.
Sometimes it just doesn't matter, I have sat for hours listening without any knowledge of which library i am listening to, but occassionally an artifact will just jump out and 10/10 times when I check the file details I see that it is an mp3 (at 320kb VBR).
My hearing is ok,  but not exceptional, I do not claim to have golden ears, but I know the music I listen to.
I listen to a LOT of music on both a high end stereo (&gt; 20K$) which is driven digitally from a custom PC based system in another room to a high end DAC, and on high end headphones, as well as on my mp3 player (ipod touch), and the artifacts that I hear (typically problems with reproduction of high frequency sounds, sometimes something that is just wrong with the tone) is such an irritating thing that you cannot ignore it.
Can I hear it on all recordings 100\% of the time.. no way.
But on the right material I will pick it out every time.
But unless I am in my listening space (which is almost painfully quiet) I doubt I would even notice and I doubt most people who listen to earbuds or car audio as their primary environment could ever pick out the difference, its all a matter of what you are used to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139356</id>
	<title>You must have an abnormal hearing to differenciate</title>
	<author>cooldfish</author>
	<datestamp>1258476600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The german magazine c't made 2000 an test with several people, they found out that the pereson that had the worst hearing was best at differenciating between CD and mp3. That person's hearing had suffered from an explosion and he as only able to hear frequences up to 8kHz on one ear and had a Tinitus on the other ear. He could hear more of the effects from the filters that are applied to mp3 streams.

Further (german) info see <a href="http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html" title="heise.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html</a> [heise.de]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The german magazine c't made 2000 an test with several people , they found out that the pereson that had the worst hearing was best at differenciating between CD and mp3 .
That person 's hearing had suffered from an explosion and he as only able to hear frequences up to 8kHz on one ear and had a Tinitus on the other ear .
He could hear more of the effects from the filters that are applied to mp3 streams .
Further ( german ) info see http : //www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html [ heise.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The german magazine c't made 2000 an test with several people, they found out that the pereson that had the worst hearing was best at differenciating between CD and mp3.
That person's hearing had suffered from an explosion and he as only able to hear frequences up to 8kHz on one ear and had a Tinitus on the other ear.
He could hear more of the effects from the filters that are applied to mp3 streams.
Further (german) info see http://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Kreuzverhoertest-287592.html [heise.de]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141918</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1257079860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>bragging about buying $5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brain</p></div><p>Spending $5000 on speakers definitely applies lossy compression to your bank account.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>bragging about buying $ 5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brainSpending $ 5000 on speakers definitely applies lossy compression to your bank account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bragging about buying $5000 speakers makes you look like someone used lossy compression on your brainSpending $5000 on speakers definitely applies lossy compression to your bank account.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146242</id>
	<title>You have to be able to LISTEN</title>
	<author>boogahboogah</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sold stereo equipment in the middle of the HiFi revolution (1968-1980) and I can tell you, without a doubt, that most people HEAR but they don't LISTEN. The biggest piece of my job selling HiFi gear was spending time to educate the prospect about sound, what they were hearing, why one was better than another, and why something that sounded 'good' at first blush usually turned out to be craptastic, the aural equivalent of Microsoft's 'eye candy'.</p><p>MP3's underreport the low end and sizzle-ize the top end, in addition to losing sound information and generally gargle-izing the entire sound spectrum.</p><p>If someone has never heard very good sound, then how are they ever going to tell the difference between good sound and crap ?  Just because you give them a good pair of earphones you can't expect them to identify quality reproduction because they don't know how to LISTEN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sold stereo equipment in the middle of the HiFi revolution ( 1968-1980 ) and I can tell you , without a doubt , that most people HEAR but they do n't LISTEN .
The biggest piece of my job selling HiFi gear was spending time to educate the prospect about sound , what they were hearing , why one was better than another , and why something that sounded 'good ' at first blush usually turned out to be craptastic , the aural equivalent of Microsoft 's 'eye candy'.MP3 's underreport the low end and sizzle-ize the top end , in addition to losing sound information and generally gargle-izing the entire sound spectrum.If someone has never heard very good sound , then how are they ever going to tell the difference between good sound and crap ?
Just because you give them a good pair of earphones you ca n't expect them to identify quality reproduction because they do n't know how to LISTEN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sold stereo equipment in the middle of the HiFi revolution (1968-1980) and I can tell you, without a doubt, that most people HEAR but they don't LISTEN.
The biggest piece of my job selling HiFi gear was spending time to educate the prospect about sound, what they were hearing, why one was better than another, and why something that sounded 'good' at first blush usually turned out to be craptastic, the aural equivalent of Microsoft's 'eye candy'.MP3's underreport the low end and sizzle-ize the top end, in addition to losing sound information and generally gargle-izing the entire sound spectrum.If someone has never heard very good sound, then how are they ever going to tell the difference between good sound and crap ?
Just because you give them a good pair of earphones you can't expect them to identify quality reproduction because they don't know how to LISTEN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226</id>
	<title>Training and experience matter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258475760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been exposed to people who write audio codecs for a living. They can tell because they've become sensitive to the artifacts present in MP3s. They also can pick up problems with CD's that haven't been dithered properly. They can easily pick out MP3 even at 320kbps. These are specialists. But even in this study there was one individual who had a high success rate.</p><p>At 192K and a good pair of headphones with good material I think most people could learn pretty quickly to pick up the difference - loss of stereo image at higher frequencies is pretty easy to pick up.</p><p>There are also studies available that point out the advantages of high bit rate recordings - these enable the use of sophisticated filters that eliminate some of the issues present with CD sound. If you are interested and have a mathematical bent, look up the work of Meridian's Peter Craven. Again the differences can be detected by specialists. I'm old enough so that my ears are not good enough to pick up these improvements.</p><p>I rip to FLAC and convert for my portables because of these factors.</p><p>If you want to try some testing yourself visit hydrogenaudio. They have apps set up to do abx comparisons so you can test yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been exposed to people who write audio codecs for a living .
They can tell because they 've become sensitive to the artifacts present in MP3s .
They also can pick up problems with CD 's that have n't been dithered properly .
They can easily pick out MP3 even at 320kbps .
These are specialists .
But even in this study there was one individual who had a high success rate.At 192K and a good pair of headphones with good material I think most people could learn pretty quickly to pick up the difference - loss of stereo image at higher frequencies is pretty easy to pick up.There are also studies available that point out the advantages of high bit rate recordings - these enable the use of sophisticated filters that eliminate some of the issues present with CD sound .
If you are interested and have a mathematical bent , look up the work of Meridian 's Peter Craven .
Again the differences can be detected by specialists .
I 'm old enough so that my ears are not good enough to pick up these improvements.I rip to FLAC and convert for my portables because of these factors.If you want to try some testing yourself visit hydrogenaudio .
They have apps set up to do abx comparisons so you can test yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been exposed to people who write audio codecs for a living.
They can tell because they've become sensitive to the artifacts present in MP3s.
They also can pick up problems with CD's that haven't been dithered properly.
They can easily pick out MP3 even at 320kbps.
These are specialists.
But even in this study there was one individual who had a high success rate.At 192K and a good pair of headphones with good material I think most people could learn pretty quickly to pick up the difference - loss of stereo image at higher frequencies is pretty easy to pick up.There are also studies available that point out the advantages of high bit rate recordings - these enable the use of sophisticated filters that eliminate some of the issues present with CD sound.
If you are interested and have a mathematical bent, look up the work of Meridian's Peter Craven.
Again the differences can be detected by specialists.
I'm old enough so that my ears are not good enough to pick up these improvements.I rip to FLAC and convert for my portables because of these factors.If you want to try some testing yourself visit hydrogenaudio.
They have apps set up to do abx comparisons so you can test yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140024</id>
	<title>Odd pattern....</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1258482120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've seen lots of these articles on slashdot, but I've yet to see a single one that offers audio clips to compare. Not for data's sake, but just for the curious to see what difference (or lack thereof) the article is talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've seen lots of these articles on slashdot , but I 've yet to see a single one that offers audio clips to compare .
Not for data 's sake , but just for the curious to see what difference ( or lack thereof ) the article is talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've seen lots of these articles on slashdot, but I've yet to see a single one that offers audio clips to compare.
Not for data's sake, but just for the curious to see what difference (or lack thereof) the article is talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142664</id>
	<title>problem with these tests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with doing listening tests with the "average joe" is that the average joe has no idea what to listen for.  They have "uneducated ears" so to speak.  For a vast majority of today's listeners, if the sound track doesn't have an overbearing bass track and squeaky highs, to them it "doesn't sound good".  They have no clue what a quality recording sounds like.  If they even hear nuanced sounds, like the quiet echo of the symphonic hall's acoustics (in the case of such a recording), they don't know what it is and they don't like it.  I have even noticed that for some people, if the music recording is not over saturated (loud and distorted) they don't like it.</p><p>Lossless, and even better, uncompressed audio is and always will sound better than lossy, you just have to know what you're listening for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with doing listening tests with the " average joe " is that the average joe has no idea what to listen for .
They have " uneducated ears " so to speak .
For a vast majority of today 's listeners , if the sound track does n't have an overbearing bass track and squeaky highs , to them it " does n't sound good " .
They have no clue what a quality recording sounds like .
If they even hear nuanced sounds , like the quiet echo of the symphonic hall 's acoustics ( in the case of such a recording ) , they do n't know what it is and they do n't like it .
I have even noticed that for some people , if the music recording is not over saturated ( loud and distorted ) they do n't like it.Lossless , and even better , uncompressed audio is and always will sound better than lossy , you just have to know what you 're listening for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with doing listening tests with the "average joe" is that the average joe has no idea what to listen for.
They have "uneducated ears" so to speak.
For a vast majority of today's listeners, if the sound track doesn't have an overbearing bass track and squeaky highs, to them it "doesn't sound good".
They have no clue what a quality recording sounds like.
If they even hear nuanced sounds, like the quiet echo of the symphonic hall's acoustics (in the case of such a recording), they don't know what it is and they don't like it.
I have even noticed that for some people, if the music recording is not over saturated (loud and distorted) they don't like it.Lossless, and even better, uncompressed audio is and always will sound better than lossy, you just have to know what you're listening for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142466</id>
	<title>Re:Ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a lot of audiophile nonsense, sure, but that does not mean it is all nonsense.</p><p>Speakers and microphones distort the sound so much that it is always immediately obvious to *anyone* that they are listening to a recording, rather than a live instrument.</p><p>That some people should try and get a little closer to the live sound is not ridiculous. We are still so far from it though that most people have given up and just assume it's always going to sound like a recording.</p><p>If you listen to a *quality* system though, like a set of high end ATC monitors in a tuned studio control room, the fidelity can be pretty surprising. You don't need esoteric cables, or even esoteric amplifiers/CD players. A decent set of speakers in a tuned room makes the majority of the difference.</p><p>Most people have never even heard average reproduction though, so they just assume it's all audiophile nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of audiophile nonsense , sure , but that does not mean it is all nonsense.Speakers and microphones distort the sound so much that it is always immediately obvious to * anyone * that they are listening to a recording , rather than a live instrument.That some people should try and get a little closer to the live sound is not ridiculous .
We are still so far from it though that most people have given up and just assume it 's always going to sound like a recording.If you listen to a * quality * system though , like a set of high end ATC monitors in a tuned studio control room , the fidelity can be pretty surprising .
You do n't need esoteric cables , or even esoteric amplifiers/CD players .
A decent set of speakers in a tuned room makes the majority of the difference.Most people have never even heard average reproduction though , so they just assume it 's all audiophile nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of audiophile nonsense, sure, but that does not mean it is all nonsense.Speakers and microphones distort the sound so much that it is always immediately obvious to *anyone* that they are listening to a recording, rather than a live instrument.That some people should try and get a little closer to the live sound is not ridiculous.
We are still so far from it though that most people have given up and just assume it's always going to sound like a recording.If you listen to a *quality* system though, like a set of high end ATC monitors in a tuned studio control room, the fidelity can be pretty surprising.
You don't need esoteric cables, or even esoteric amplifiers/CD players.
A decent set of speakers in a tuned room makes the majority of the difference.Most people have never even heard average reproduction though, so they just assume it's all audiophile nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139098</id>
	<title>Re:Can we stop with the anti-ad sentiment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?</p></div><p>How about cutting out the crappy anti-person ads and just sticking to the story?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story ? How about cutting out the crappy anti-person ads and just sticking to the story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about cutting out the snarky anti-ad commentary and just sticking to the story?How about cutting out the crappy anti-person ads and just sticking to the story?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145990</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257100620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best point I have read in support of  FLAC is that it makes a good gold standard on your home system. From that you can derive varies different formats from and retain a good quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best point I have read in support of FLAC is that it makes a good gold standard on your home system .
From that you can derive varies different formats from and retain a good quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best point I have read in support of  FLAC is that it makes a good gold standard on your home system.
From that you can derive varies different formats from and retain a good quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140500</id>
	<title>Re:Any good audio engineer will tell you-</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a real joy in a good pair of speakers. I suspect that what is reasonable and what is not depends on the budget. In any case there are things like SNR and a frequency response curve to look at so you know what you're getting.</p><p>It's this stuff that makes audiophiles so detestable:<br>http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/demagnetization.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a real joy in a good pair of speakers .
I suspect that what is reasonable and what is not depends on the budget .
In any case there are things like SNR and a frequency response curve to look at so you know what you 're getting.It 's this stuff that makes audiophiles so detestable : http : //www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/demagnetization.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a real joy in a good pair of speakers.
I suspect that what is reasonable and what is not depends on the budget.
In any case there are things like SNR and a frequency response curve to look at so you know what you're getting.It's this stuff that makes audiophiles so detestable:http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/demagnetization.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030</id>
	<title>It does depend on the recording</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>128bps is certainly not enjoyable for certain classical pieces. By the time you've hit 192, it's fine. At 320kbps I can't tell the difference. If that means I have "tin ears" I'm thankful for them. They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.</p><p>Apart from a new survey of an old topic is there anything new here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>128bps is certainly not enjoyable for certain classical pieces .
By the time you 've hit 192 , it 's fine .
At 320kbps I ca n't tell the difference .
If that means I have " tin ears " I 'm thankful for them .
They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.Apart from a new survey of an old topic is there anything new here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>128bps is certainly not enjoyable for certain classical pieces.
By the time you've hit 192, it's fine.
At 320kbps I can't tell the difference.
If that means I have "tin ears" I'm thankful for them.
They save me thousands of dollars in high end equipment and they save me using obscure poorly supported lossless formats and then having to convert to mp3 half the time anyway.Apart from a new survey of an old topic is there anything new here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139836</id>
	<title>Re:I've been saying this for years.</title>
	<author>Josh Coalson</author>
	<datestamp>1258480620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nonetheless, I just rip all my music as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wav now for archiving. To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs, because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp.</p></div><p>
there are a couple of benefits (besides the free space): 1) flac is easier to tag in a way that is seen by all players; 2) if your wavs get corrupt, you might not know until you listen to them (maybe getting full-scale noise screaming out of your speakers), and the damage (rarely) could mess up the remainder of the file.  with flac, each frame has a checksum and you can verify the whole thing.  any errors damage only the frame, and can be detected and muted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonetheless , I just rip all my music as .wav now for archiving .
To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs , because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp .
there are a couple of benefits ( besides the free space ) : 1 ) flac is easier to tag in a way that is seen by all players ; 2 ) if your wavs get corrupt , you might not know until you listen to them ( maybe getting full-scale noise screaming out of your speakers ) , and the damage ( rarely ) could mess up the remainder of the file .
with flac , each frame has a checksum and you can verify the whole thing .
any errors damage only the frame , and can be detected and muted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonetheless, I just rip all my music as .wav now for archiving.
To me its not even worth the effort to convert that to FLAC or other lossless codecs, because that just means an additional decoding step if I ever want to use the music for purposes besides playing it live in Winamp.
there are a couple of benefits (besides the free space): 1) flac is easier to tag in a way that is seen by all players; 2) if your wavs get corrupt, you might not know until you listen to them (maybe getting full-scale noise screaming out of your speakers), and the damage (rarely) could mess up the remainder of the file.
with flac, each frame has a checksum and you can verify the whole thing.
any errors damage only the frame, and can be detected and muted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140888</id>
	<title>Good sound, "cheap" price</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257109080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is fun!</p><p>Like to hear the special sound of The White Stripes, Icy Thump mixed by the audio engineer legend Steve Hoffman, in high resolution sound.<br>You could of course go "Meeh, I don't care.." , but then I think you are missing out on something. And I can back that up by my friends reaction listing with my gear.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>This was my 24th, 25th 26th, year present to myself:</p><p>Headphones: <a href="http://www.stereophile.com/headphones/806akg/" title="stereophile.com" rel="nofollow">AKG K701</a> [stereophile.com]<br>PocketAmp: <a href="http://www.raysamuelsaudio.com/products/hornet" title="raysamuelsaudio.com" rel="nofollow">Emmeline "The Hornet"</a> [raysamuelsaudio.com]<br>MusicPlayer: <a href="http://www.rockbox.org/" title="rockbox.org" rel="nofollow">iPod 5G with Rockbox (flac suppport)</a> [rockbox.org]<br>SoundCard: <a href="http://www.m-audio.com/products/en\_us/Transit.html" title="m-audio.com" rel="nofollow">Transit 24bit 96kHz, M-audio</a> [m-audio.com]</p><p>If you are interested in music, and have some extra cash to invest. This would be my recommendation.</p><p>Cheers!</p><p>Tip: Look for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve\_Hoffman" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Steve Hoffman</a> [wikipedia.org], and DCC mixes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is fun ! Like to hear the special sound of The White Stripes , Icy Thump mixed by the audio engineer legend Steve Hoffman , in high resolution sound.You could of course go " Meeh , I do n't care.. " , but then I think you are missing out on something .
And I can back that up by my friends reaction listing with my gear .
: ) This was my 24th , 25th 26th , year present to myself : Headphones : AKG K701 [ stereophile.com ] PocketAmp : Emmeline " The Hornet " [ raysamuelsaudio.com ] MusicPlayer : iPod 5G with Rockbox ( flac suppport ) [ rockbox.org ] SoundCard : Transit 24bit 96kHz , M-audio [ m-audio.com ] If you are interested in music , and have some extra cash to invest .
This would be my recommendation.Cheers ! Tip : Look for Steve Hoffman [ wikipedia.org ] , and DCC mixes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is fun!Like to hear the special sound of The White Stripes, Icy Thump mixed by the audio engineer legend Steve Hoffman, in high resolution sound.You could of course go "Meeh, I don't care.." , but then I think you are missing out on something.
And I can back that up by my friends reaction listing with my gear.
:)This was my 24th, 25th 26th, year present to myself:Headphones: AKG K701 [stereophile.com]PocketAmp: Emmeline "The Hornet" [raysamuelsaudio.com]MusicPlayer: iPod 5G with Rockbox (flac suppport) [rockbox.org]SoundCard: Transit 24bit 96kHz, M-audio [m-audio.com]If you are interested in music, and have some extra cash to invest.
This would be my recommendation.Cheers!Tip: Look for Steve Hoffman [wikipedia.org], and DCC mixes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30152764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30155432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30153404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30151584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30153864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30165224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30151808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_18_0123217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145028
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145940
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30152764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30153404
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139778
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30153864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30155432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30159626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139076
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139178
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139586
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30144068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30151584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140322
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142114
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141764
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142782
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140554
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148570
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142442
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146718
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142950
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145836
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30154572
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142802
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30151808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148818
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30165224
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146914
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30150166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30148304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30147722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30143406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30139424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30141468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30142466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30140288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30146404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_18_0123217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_18_0123217.30145002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
