quote:

Originally posted by mizzuno There is no such thing as overkill or overengineering thats an oxymoron, if there was such a thing people wouldn't continually try to get better and better, cars, computers, sound, etc..... MIZZZZ

Ahh but there is - when the profit/gain is outmatched by the resources used to acheive that gain - a loss is made - this is called overengineering
Things get better - as they become cheaper ($ and time) to make


BUT
in this case the gain is totally subjective - if you think the quality is discernable, and worth the space - or if you have waayyyy too much storage space - then the gain is worth it

Essentially - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Cheers

economies of scales allows for cheaper and better things to be made.. and therefore it is possible for ppl to keep aiming to get better cars... better computers, etc...
from murphy's law.. computers double in speed every however many months.. and so i don't see the relevance..

___________________
dave seaman is a legend... photon project and insigma ... masterful. amurai is where trance should be...

quote:

Originally posted by infinity economies of scales allows for cheaper and better things to be made.. and therefore it is possible for ppl to keep aiming to get better cars... better computers, etc... from murphy's law.. computers double in speed every however many months.. and so i don't see the relevance..

Well infinity as for economies of scale..i'm just waiting for that aston martin to be cost effective..and as for murphy's law you are correct that computing power increases but most people don't need that power, except for gamers but still the need for more functionality and better quality preempts us to get "better" electronics. Economies of scale have nothing to do with quality they have to do with the # of users, so whereas most people are satisfied with the quality of cd's, on the horizon is another format which will allow better frequency and sounstage reproduction, and users such as myself feel that that increase is justified and therefore will buy it, as the first adopters of any new technology incur the highest price, soon enough the technology catches on your economy of scale is then completely relevent. I can tell the difference between mediocre and excellent sound reproduction, thats why i spend a decent amount on audio reproduction equipment (ie speakers, amps etc of high quality) some people are happy with their aiwa mini system. That being said I am an IT manager and have access to a large amount of disk space whenever i want it, whereas the size of the file may be a limiting factor to 320K or 256K that does not mean their is no difference in quality but it does mean that at some point it is a diminishing return.....btw great conversation guys...

MIZZZZZZZ

talking about the bit rate of mp3...i got all my mp3 at 128kbyte & they sound almost as good as 192..maybe 192 sounds sharper but 128 is good for me..my friend has like 2500 mp3 and he coverted to 128 and save like 1 gig of space..so having your mp3 at 320 is kind of ridiculous if you ask me..unless you got 20 terrabytes of space.

___________________

thats what i'm thinking..
ok fine.. i'll admit that 320 probably has some increase in sound quality than 128 or 160..
but i don't think its worth double or more HD space for that..
the highest i would ever download is 192.. and even then i'll convert back to 160..

___________________
dave seaman is a legend... photon project and insigma ... masterful. amurai is where trance should be...

infinity the last thing u should do is convert 192 to 160, and it has all to do with how mp3z work.

Reguardless of what bit rate u like..every time u convert a file from 320 to 192 etc, mp3 is called lossy compression because when u rip at 320 direct from a cd u still loose quality, if u do that with an mp3 u loose even more quality, in other words every time u covert or rip u are degrading the sound just like with analog tape. Never covert from one mp3 bitrate to another there will ALWAYS be a degredation in quality. If you can't tell the difference between 128 and 192 then by all means do what u wish but i'll send u ISOS2 in both verions, and i'll bet u if u rip it to cd and play it back on a decent system u will hear the difference, no doubt about it, i have given people some cd's ripped and then burned at different bit rates and its quite noticable especially on transients and highs which is what trance is all about. I have plenty of space on my hard drives and i don't worry about space concerns. So reguardless of what u think 320 will always be better and cd will always be better than mp3. If u don't notice the difference more power to you, i rip all my compilations at 320 and the quality is outstanding, if u want to see, i'll glady send u a cd and you'll hear the difference but if ur just using it to play through winamp on a crappy sysyem then its not worth the space it takes up...


Mizzz

Last edited by mizzuno on Mar-15-2001 at 19:37