They could be (for some people) but they're aren't The appreciation of quality is something highly subjective.

Well, dude, we all know that your hearing is anything but normal :B

My point is, if quality wasn't high enough, these music stores wouldn't be as successful as they are today. HA audiophiles can whine all they want, outside their little protected world of higher than 200kbps encodes and Musepack, people are very, very happy with the quality at online stores.

Of course, quality is good for a lot of people. But we can't decently say that "quality is high", without some precisions about this statement.
WMA@128 is also appreciated by millions people. Would you say that wma@128 is high quality as well? I doubt so... WMA like AAC are good enough for a lot of consumers: they're not "high" or "poor" by themselves.

Of course. Each person has his own opinion about what's high quality and what is not.

That doesn't keep them from often being wrong. Several people aren't humble enough to admit their hearing sucks. So they go after Musepack insane and lossless when Lame at 128kbps would be perfectly fine for them. I see that from listening test results.

I'm not sure how FLAC is placebo? If your happy with lossy audio thats fine, but it doesn't mean I am anal or some kind of freak because I don't agree with you. You continually try to argue that lossy audio is as good as lossless and that is simply not possible or even a reasonable thing to say. They aren't even the same thing. Lossy audio will loss more and more audio data everytime you re-encode it, and is already missing some in the first place. Even if I can't hear it it is still there, so it's not placebo. BTW, I use lossless for archiving my CD's also, incase somethign happens to them.

Right. But don't forget that some people are using bloated bitrate for security reason. Audition is not something static: nobody is doomed to weakness. I was myself very happy three years ago with mp3@128, even on harpsichord Now, some people are thinking that I was born on Mars

Most quality issues with lossy is linked to artifact (and not high frequency hearing). Artifacts are something you progressively learn to detect. I could easily understand why people prefer rip at high bitrate or why they don't want to spend their money on good but 'limit' quality files, even if they're currently happy with offered quality.
Some of them are just too vehement when they say that AAC@192 is bullshit: that's very annoying, I agree with that

Lol. there you go twisting my words again.

FLAC isn't placebo. Believing lossless is the only acceptable compression format quality-wise is placebo.



You're not anal or some kind of freak because you disagree with me. You're anal or some kind of freak because you swear on lossless.



You can't hear it, but still you say lossless is the way to go. Man, you're not even coherent!

You're actually one of those pointy eared vulcans from star trek



Good. Thank-you

I can't hear a difference between a Apple Lossless file and a 128kbps Apple AAC encoded file (iTunes 4.7 /QT 6.5.2). I guess atleast iTMS should be sufficient for my quality needs

You pay 12 dollars for 12 songs in a lossy format, when you can pay 15 for a cd, with original sound, beautiful covers and such, and make your lossy formats to use. You have the lossy and the lossless. I cant see a difference between 192 and the original (expect for some metal tunes), but what Im really concerned is how much it cost.

I just think it isnt fair for the consumer. I think the companys are earning A LOT since they sell almost at the same price but have much less to worry about.

Maybe my affirmatives are kinda wrong since I dont know everything about this market, but IMO I dont think its fair mainly about the price. It only comes interesting if you like just one song from a lot of bands.

Ofcourse.. Buying a full album on any of the online stores is not that wise. But buying a single, or just one song you like is OK i think. I'd probably buy a few chart-tunes now and then myself if we had iTMS in Norway. But for "real" music that i really like (for example: Pink Floyd) i would always go out and buy the CD, because i know i would like the whole CD, not just one song. And because i would like to have that CD in my collection.

I never said lossless is the only acceptable format. I even said I use vorbis for lossy stuff. But archiving music losslessly is my choice because it preserves every bit of the music. I have the space to spare. It's not about being anal, it's just keeping what I've paid good money for. Just my preference. That is all.


I don't see what makes it more anal than choosing AAC over mp3? Or using 192kbps over 128. It's just a preference. I have 500gb of storage, I'm not likely going to be filling that anytime soon even using lossless audio.



What is not coherent about that? There are plenty of things people can't see or hear, but it doesn't mean they aren't important or have no purpose. It's nothing to with being anal or just swearing on a format, it's just an opinion. I have the space, so why not just keep the music the way i paid for? Doesn't matter if I can't hear a difference. It's what I like as well as many other people. If lossless was only for anal people there must a hell of a lot of them, otherwise I doubt there'd be an entire section of this forum dedicated to it. I have nothing against lossy format. MY personal choice is lossless. I am just trying to explain that lossy audio IS lossy and no matter how transparent it sounds, it will never be as good as the original. It's like copying a cassette to a cassette. The difference may not always be audible, but there will definetaly be one. Lossy compression is like the cassette tapes of the digital world. Not a bad thing. Who didn't like cassettes? But most people like cd's more. You like lossy stuff, no problem. I like lossless stuff. I see no conflict here.

Well said Duble0Syx. When you get right down to it, which sounds better is irrelevant in the bigger picture. You can try to put a good spin on it, but lossy is still lossy no matter how you cut it. There are many other considerations one has to make besides how it sounds when it comes to ripping their entire collection, and when all the facts are put together as a coherent whole, one quickly realizes why lossless will usually come out on top more often than not. That doesn't mean lossy is totally bad though. Both are just tools and both have their proper place. IMHO, buying lossy DRM files is not one of them for obvious reasons, most of which have already been stated in this thread. Now if it's something totally under your control, say because you own a portable, well that's a differrent story then. That's the most important thing everyone has to remember here; the intended use. So like Duble0Syx said, "I see no conflict here". At least, as long as your not biased.

One would argue that if you can't hear any difference (being "transparent"), how can you describe one as better than the other? Perhaps you need to make more narrowly-defined word choices. Because lossless FLAC (APE, TTA, etc.) does have more usefullness.

1) Archiving: In case you wish to store your music in perfect bit-for-bit condition pending better audio equipment, trained improvement in hearing (this isn't going to happen naturally, rather the opposite), or obsolesence of your current lossy format of choice.

2) Signal processing: All claims of lossy transparency are shot when masking frequencies are reduced significantly, or removed frequencies would've been sufficiently boosted to be audible. (I must wonder, however, if this can occur in practical situations, with the large range of frequencies on EQ bands? I do not know how far up the scale masking frequencies will mask.) Lossy codecs also seem to suffer on surround channel splitters due to coding (MS/LR, for example) that takes advantage of the fact that most media will only be played back in two channels.

3) Zero artifacting risk: Certain samples & types of samples are notorious for causing encoders to hiccup & produce a flaw even at their highest quality settings. Lossless encoding completely eliminates this possibility, although these occurances are admittedly remote.

I use FLAC mostly for purpose #1.

Also, I find it intesting that since this discussion is purportedly about the lack of lossless music in online music stores, that no one had anything to say about Magnatune, which does just that, and is uniquely neat in many other ways.

Magnatune isn't the only music store offering lossless music. There are some others.

The problem is their offerings are too limited. If you want mainstream artists, you must get music from the big stores, and these can't offer lossless downloads (unless you go for the slightly-illegal allofmp3 and similar ones)

Online music downloads are quite nice, but when it comes to lossless I've found just buying the cd's works best. The advantage of online shops for more obscure stuff though would be "out of print" cd's would no longer cost you $$$. Most online stores offerring lossless music don't offer much, or for too high a price. Consider they get to bypass distribution and medium expenses you'd they'd charge less. That and I enjoy ripping music. EAC and FLAC make me a happy person. Hopefully someday online shops will offer more formats.

@Moguta: I use FLAC for the same reasons. I've paid good money for music and I plan to keep what I paid for. My reason for saying lossless is "better" is meant in terms of quality, in the fact as you descibed...

If I get tired of mp3's re-encdoing them would obviously not make things better. If I have lossless copies of everything I can just render lossy files to whatever format I choose. My current favorite lossy format is vorbis for radio streaming. I'll be owning a portable device soon that can play vorbis too. Although it could probably play the flacs, in the case of portability there is no reason not to use a lossy codec since it is mostly transparent. And on headphones on in my car I shouldn't be listening that intently anway. I have quite an archive of flacs and about half have been encoded to lossy codecs. Music just makes me happy.

I have to agree with everyone saying that it's far more functional, provided you have the HDD space, to use FLAC or other lossless encoding method.

1) No quality loss.
Yes, lossy can be transparant, and usually is for most people, on most people's gear. But with a higher end system, or better trained ears, even high bitrate lossy files can often be told apart pretty easily (depends on music). My friend, who is very un-into audio as far as seeking high quality goes, was able to tell the difference between some CBR 256kbps mp3s i had lying around (not ideal, i know--lame encoded at least) when using a pair of lowish end electrostatic headphones, and blindly at that.

2) Convenience.
I can encode them into whatever lossy form I want, at any time. Transcode lossy files a couple times, and it really begins to show, there's no denying it. Or, I can burn them onto a CD identical to the original (other than not being pressed).

3) Bragging Rights.
Seriously, who wouldn't think you're awesome when they hear you say "Yah, I have a ton of FLAC on my computer, it's really nice." Ok, just kidding.

Oh, also, there were some comments earlier about video. Yes, I buy DVDs, which are lossy. That's not to say that I don't notice. Most DVDs aren't all that well encoded, and there are a ton of artifacts. Even well encoded ones have their limitations, and you can tell. However, the difference is that there is no other alternative that is better. You can't buy the raw film (the equivalent of buying the CDs for music). Of course, even if you could, those mediums also have their limitations. If they didn't, and no one could tell the difference, why would SACD and DVD-A exist? Or higher quality films?

Obviously, once again, DVDs are in general perfectly good enough for the general populace. I know people who don't notice any difference between DVDs and VHS, even. That doesn't mean that, just becuase it's usually transparant for most, that it is for all. Nor does it make people crazy for wanting better, even if they can only marginally tell the difference.

Also note, that when working with video, you always want to use lossless compression, like HuffYUV. No matter your source. Otherwise, you basically wind up encoding it at least twice (source->finished edit->good encoder), and that can really hurt the quality. Even at high lossy rates. This is just a corollary to the whole "but you can transcode lossy!" argument.

Anyways, that's it. Just thought I'd chime in. I'm new here, first post, came from head-fi actually. Yeah, start pointing and laughing now. I just got into this whole "audiophile" thing, and I'm definately not hardcore. I use lossy, don't get me wrong. But, I also recognize that it's often not up to snuff. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I decided that by myself, not just because it's "cool" or because I thought lossy audio, inferior equipment, and such were inherently terrible. I used to think that my dad and his friends were all completely insane. Then I decided that, hey, these headphones really sound bad compared to X other things I've heard places. So I bought some midish-level cans (HD495s). Had them for 2 years. Started to use them a lot a couple months ago, and realized that I wanted better. The sound was just too muddied, instruments non delineated from each other as well as I wanted (even though they were already LIGHT YEARS ahead of normal headphones). Now I've got some HD650s, am workin on an amp for them, upgraded my sound card (E-Mu 1212m), will mod it hopefully as well pretty soon, and am fearing that there's no end in sight (except lack of money!)

I find this forum very interesting, lots of good topics. Sorry for the long, boring post.

This thread is gone WAAAAAYYY off topic..... iPods .... whats so good about them anyway? Anyone have an opinion of the upcoming Creative Zen Micro? If the general public is aware this is an alternative at least to the iPod mini will they go for it over the iPod mini ??

Zen Micro

Which is exactly why you have a problem with buying digital audio files? I don't get your perspective. What you imply is you care about how the digital files are compressed and produced, but then absolutely hate the idea of buying something that is cheaper and sounds the same when you "think" the quality of the original is better even though you just stated that the quality of the cheaper files are the function of the original? Also, compression is NOT irrelevant because I'd say 95% of today's music is heavily compressed. Therefore a rather large amount of digital music you can buy online will be a function of the master they are encoded from. I guess you can waste your money on horribly mastered CDs when the encoded files sound the same because they are encoded from the same master.

:B

LOL. High quality as in destroyed CD prongs (can't find the proper term) and either folded or mashed CD inserts. Not to mention the high quality of the CD case itself. The majority of CDs I buy come with smashed cases already. DVDs I've bought have had booklets and inserts totally askew and not up to par quality wise. I'm sick and tired of buying CDs and DVDs when the product I purchase is already in a basically used condition. I can't produce the $$$ it costs to press a CD or print the booklets professionally, but I can produce a CD myself that has less C1 or C2 errors and booklets that aren't all folded and smashed. I just recently bought a new 3 CD live set from a band where the packaging consists of a fold out paper case. All of the CDs are already scratched even before I have played them. QUALITY!

If one is concerned about audio quality, one would NOT use an EQ or effects. Audiophiles should know this?

I wasn't referring to losslessly compressed formats. If you read my post I was referring to the quality of the CD he so likes to buy.

I challenge you, Grand Dizzy, to the death in a ABX duel!

Enough talk! Here are the rules:

You prepare a 30 second lossless sample of a song of you choosing and upload it to HA in FLAC format.
I encode the sample to ~128 kbps mp3 and upload the lossy file to HA.
You use fb2k to ABX the two files and save the report.

You win if you post an ABX report, within 24 hours from my upload of the lossy file, documenting that you could hear the difference between lossless and lossy at least 14 out of 16 times.



If you loose I hope you will be a wiser man... but don't commit no suicide

Alors inutile de faire des project! La seule chose qui soit vraiment sure dans ton avenir, c'est la corde qui t'attend!
(Le Spectre Aux Balles d'Or)

Oh for heavens sake! How hard is it to understand that which is better is NOT solely about how it sounds? Sheesh.

As far as a duel, I would bet cash on that one since the format is going to be MP3. Easy money.

Can I choose the song? I'd be glad to take part in this.

This thread is getting way off-topic...

Why don't you just make a new thread for lossless vs lossy and ABX duels and such.. sheez..

You turn will come...

When I'm done with Grand Dizzy!

Tu vois, 006... Je ne suis pas aussi naïf que tu le penses... J'etais arrivé aux mëmes conclusions que toi.. Tu n'as plus aucune chance... Tu seras mort demain!!!
(Le Dernière Carte p18)

This wouldn't happen to be Live at Budokan by Dream Theater, would it?

Thats not a very nice thing to say.

On topic...

The iPod is popular for many reasons, here are four:
- iPod mini
- iPod 4G
- iPod U2
- iPod Photo

My iPod experience

Is this why the iPod is popular?

Furthermore the iTunes Music Store has its merits, especially when you primarily listen to your music using an iPod:
- You can browse and listen to songs and feel like a child in a toy store
- Seconds after buying a song you can enjoy it on your iPod
- Album art, tags, file management is simply not something you care about
- You can burn an album to CD and have it in your hand five minutes after you bought it, complete with album art jewel case

It has a few downsides too...
- You tend to spend more than you anticipated

I know there are other packages out there from Creative, Dell, Sony, iRiver, Rio etc..

Some of their players may have features and sound quality that rival and even surpass the iPods.

However to the great majority of potential users they are neither as complete and easy to use as the iPods nor as sexy...

I've used several portable players a few people I know have. How is a player with more functionality and overall quality less complete than an iPod? I'll agree the iPods may be "sexy" but they aren't all that much easier than some of the other players, if at all. I found the iRiver to be pretty easy to use. Can any of the DRM files from iTunes be played in anything but iPods, iTunes and WMP? I don't know much about iTunes, but so far i've liked the concept, but not how it was implemented. Again, the main reason iPods are so well known is marketing. Thats about the only thing they have going for them. If the iRiver or Rio players had as much marketig as iPod's the likely be just as poplular. I'm a person who prefers functionality over appearences for a portable device. I don't want some big ugly thing, but I'll gladly sacrifice some appearance for performance. I use foobar2000 for my music at home. Not what most would call "sexy" but I know of no other player that can do the things it can. All in all an iPod is just an mp3 player. It has nothing to tha stands out from many other players aside from tv ads.

Metallica sells live shows in FLAC format through livemetallica.com
Obviously they are not a "general music" store but they do sell lossless tracks.

Ding ding.

Grand Dizzy seems to be very quiet suddenly...

ABX duel moved here:

ABX Duel

iPods are popular for the same reason that mp3s are popular; It's in, it's mainstream, it's cool.

Remember that Apple is always producing new players. They may be better or worse (iPod Photo? Ech.). I'm personally going to get an iAudio M3L because of the battery life. I need that battery life, because there really are days when I will spend 12 hrs listening to music, and having a portable that does that (30+ hrs!), supports Vorbis and FLAC, and can act as a portable hard drive for work is what I need. There are a number of people who just want an MP3/iTunes AAC player and don't require the massive battery capacity, so what's wrong with that? Is the iPod special? Yeah, it got to the mainstream user. That is an accomplishment, even if it's not the best product. I mean, how many of us here boot up Windows XP or Mac OS X at least once a day? Are they necessarily the best two OSs around? I would like to say no.

And on the issue of lossless codecs, their main usages are for archiving and later transcoding. Is there something wrong with that? Geez...I don't know how these simple threads get so hideous. If you happen to use your lossless files for those purposes, but happen to also have them handy, then why not listen to them? Would I load FLAC files onto my DAP? Only if I can't cram it full of lossy, and if it ends up actually saving battery time. Otherwise, I wouldn't notice the difference between a well encoded lossy and a lossless file.

This is all a matter of personal utility more than personal preference. I don't have the hard drive space to archive all my music losslessly. I have over 30 GB of lossy music, and I can't invest on 500+GB of space. I do however encode to Musepack, mainly because I do end up (shudder) transcoding to MP3 for portable usage (until I get my M3L) and listen to the Musepacks when I'm at my desktop.

So my point is this, really: Why was there any arguing in the first place in this thread? Yeah, it'd be nice if online music stores sold lossless, but they wouldn't gain anything from it, and lose a lot more (bandwidth, storage space, anyone? Even though they can afford it, do you think that they'd want to if they can get away with pretty decent lossy?).

I buy my cds when I like the artists, even if the mastering does suck. I don't buy them online because I don't like the way the majority of the stores encode their stuff (iTunes AAC isn't bad, nor is LAME -APS. Blade 128 CBR and DRM'd WMA is bad), and here in Canada, as far as I know, the choice is kind of limited anyway. And most stores, even retail stores don't stock the music I want to hear anyway (small time indie alternative bands, foreign music, etc.) so I just get cds, either at very large stores, specialty stores, or by ordering the cd online.

So to summarize, I use lossy encoding a lot, but I want to be the one who does the encoding, because I know my own listening habits and abilities best. I'd love to see more lossless music downloads, but expecting that as a business model for large online stores isn't feasible. Yet. Finally, is the iPod great? There are better players catered to specific users--it's just that the iPod caters to the largest section of the music listening populace: The ones who only care about the tune and the look, who are just not ready to start ABXing on their poor to mediocre equipment.

Oh, and that goes for DVDs, too. I'd love to see lossless video sold, but come on now, lossless video on current technology? Please.... DVD is great, but not perfect. All fields of technology always grow. Even our best audio gear hasn't reached the stage where we can't tell it apart from a live, personal performance.

Whew! A lot's been said here since I last posted on this thread.

I would just like to respond to one comment made...

Someone said "how is it any different buying lossy audio files to buying lossy video files?".

The only difference between videos and audio is that DVD videos are a physical product that has to be manufactured, so to sell the video in lossless format would require a much higher capacity disc and would cost way more to manufacture and buy. Lossy therefore is the only current option. Whereas music files are downloads, so how big they can be is only limited by the connection speed/storage space of the person downloading them.

Add to this the fact that for decades we have been getting lossless music on CD, so "downgrading" to lossy is a big step backwards in terms of quality. Lossless video has never been an opition in any way, so buying lossy video doesn't feel like a step backwards. (It's a huge step forwards compared to VHS!)

If there were some way to buy lossless videos I would personally jump at the chance. The thought of it makes me drool! Unlike lossy audio downloads (which sound virtually identical to the original), DVD videos are substantially lower quality than the original, with artifacting being quite obvious on most titles, and artifacting to the point of distraction on some. Many, if not most, people can't tell an mp3 from a CD, whereas I would say everyone on the planet could see artifacting on a DVD, if they knew what to look for and paid attention.

In the future, when download speeds and storage cost allow for people to download hundreds of "DVD resolution" lossless movies (which I reckon is at least 3 or 4 years off, at the moment) then I personally will be wanting exactly the same thing: lossless videos instead of lossy ones.

Here you go again violating TOS#8.

One of my original comments here remain. I see so-called "audiophiles" whining about lossy online music stores as if that was about to bring armageddon. But I don't see them complaining of audio in DVD movies being distributed in AC3 or DTS, nor I see them complaining about the video itself being presented in MPEG2.

Incoherent, the lot of you.

The same phenomenon exists in live music trading circles. If you distribute just the audio of a show, it must be lossless, put that audio to a video and both can be whatever format you want. Which I don't understand.

I guess on the video side there are objective measurements of quality that can be made (PSNR, etc.) which is one of the ways lossey video compression differs from lossey audio compression, but it does still seem like a double standard.

Not "again".
Anyway, most stores offer 128 kbps encodings (sometimes in wma format, and some M4P files offered by Apple store are... doubtful). Compared to the history of the phonographic possibilities (vynil LP, CD, SACD), this kind of compression is a serious regression.

The argument about DVD's is IMHO extremely out of place in this discussion since no buys DVD's to listen music. DVD's are for video and have little or nothing to do with audiophile stuff. I think you've just run out of things to complain about. You seem to be the only person whining at this point. Why not comment about the topic instead?

On topic:
I'll agree guruboolez that lossy files, especially at 128kbps are a step backwards in terms of audio "quality." It's like going from using CD's to cassettes in some ways. If I had an iPod I could deal with 128kbps mp3's simply because they'd be for a crappy pair of apple headphones. When I'm at home I'll be listening to the lossless files I rendered them from though.

It's not an opinion that lossy is lower quality than the original. It's a fact! Lossy is called lossy because information is lost. That is my definition of a loss of quality. If your definition is different then sorry.

Loosing information is nevertheless something different from loosing "quality". Lossy process is based on perceptual principles. The loss of information is of course objective (= a fact); but the loss in quality is something subjective (~ opinion). They're not necessary linked each other.

Well I wasn't whining. I merely asked if iTMS sold "full quality" music (meaning CD quality) and was bombarded with people saying that my definition of quality was invalid and implying that I shouldn't care about getting CD quality. I then tried to explain my position, to clear up misunderstanding. That isn't whining.


You obviously didn't read what I wrote above, then. I have a big problem with the quality of DVD videos. But there isn't much you can do about it for a few years (when higher resolution becomes standard, hopefully), so why worry?


I don't like to be grouped. My opinions are my own!

Everyone is grouping me; you're all the same.

Okay, this is purely a mis-understanding of semantics.

When I say "quality" I do not mean percieved quality; I mean quality in the larger sense.

in a normal, day-to-day conversation with a normal person in real life, I would use the word "quality" in your sense, to mean what you can hear. If someone said that mp3s weren't CD "quality", I would strongly argue the opposite: that they are indeed CD quality.

But in contexts such as this, where people know more about digital technology, I have come to expect people to use the word "quality" to mean the actual amount of raw information retained, rather than how it is percieved. As I seem to be in the minorty here, I will refrain from using the word "quality" in such a way. Perhaps someone could suggest the correct phrase for when I want to talk about the quality of a CD, with reference to the amount of information it contains?

You're right: the concept of "quality" is ambivalent when it applies to audio. There is an "objective quality" (i.e. quantity of informations in kind of digital audio) and "subjective quality" (i.e. what the subject is hearing).

Lossless is necessary superior to lossy in term of objective quality (if source is the same of course). For subjective evaluation of lossy, everybody should carefully listen to the result of encoding process in order to have a precise idea about the perceived quality.


EDIT: people are also free to use or request lossless (objective quality) even if they could be fully happy with lossy files.

This phenomenon is changing. They dont accept lower quality versions because it isnt fair to the tapers, who had all the effort to tape, record, equalize and such.

Lossless audio only applies when you assume that perfect audio is *only* given by cbr 1411kbps 16b 2 ch. That is not at all true, IMHO. Theorems about signal processing say that 44100 Hz is *sufficient* to encode any waveform without discarding any component below 22050 Hz. All the current work about sound perception goes about finding out how to optimize the size of the signal. Our ears are not a digital receiver, so we can expect that the reaction to some frequency can be different from another.

On the other side, everyone knows that sound waves out of the range 20Hz-20kHz are inaudible for almost everyone. But does this mean that they are unpercievable? Maybe we can feel vibretions in our bones, or in the skin. This is not stored in the CD, because the CD only encodes waves in the audible range. But when you are hearing Pau Casals playing, you do not feel music just with your hears...

I think that I'm not violating any TOS, I am just making a sort of philosophical consideration. Don't think CD's are perfect, they miss all the non-audible component of the sound (I'm pretty sure I can ABX some good performer [edit: playing live] with any CD of the same performance, even if played in the same stage, in the same acoustical conditions), and don't blame lossy encoding, if it is done well (in the theoretic sense, I don't know whether any perceptual model actually works as well as a theorem), it's just as good as any audio-only digital encoding.

Good night (here it's almost 3am, and I have to go to a marriage tomorrow...)

I have loads of lossless video on laserdisks. Yes, they undoubtedly cost more to make, but retail price was comperable with what DVD's cost now.



Will you really prefer lossless "DVD resolution" to lossy at whatever the highest HDTV resolution is?

Why do you say CD's can't store below 20 Hz? As far as I know the lower frequency is only limited by the 80 minute play time (so on the order of .0002 Hz)

Much more limiting factor on the low end are microphones and speakers.

PC Magazine (www.PCMAG.com) did a review of iPod like (HD) MP3 players. iRiver 390T came out similar to Apple's mini-iPod.