Thanks Thomas. I learnt a lot from your reply. I am particularly interested
in which encoder to use. I would like to be able to "rip" CD's and encode
these. I have the paranoia ripper which outputs a wav file. Those encoders
you mentioned they wouldn't happen to be utilities that I can run on Linux
and you wouldn't happen to know any web addresses for them. Would you ?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Brandon <tom@PSY.UNSW.EDU.AU>
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU <PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] sound cards, spdif, etc


>NB: The following is all my opinions. I am not a master on MP3 compression.
>I understand none of the details of it. Most of this is from my friends
>experiences.
>
>MP3 isn't stored as individual samples and thus bitrate and sample rate are
>not directly relevant. But yes,
>MP3 decodes to 16bit. As to whether or not it is sub CD-quality that is
>another question. Yes there is less audio information than CD quality
>(16-bit 44kHz) but MP3 uses psychoacoustical rules for it's compression.
The
>basic premise of this is to analyze the way ears work and send enough
>information of the right type so the ear gets the same info. i.e. you may
>only send a 1/4 of the information on a CD but that's enough for the ear to
>get 90% of the sound.
>
>In my opinion two major things that effect MP3 quality are the bit rate and
>cutoff. The bitrate is analogous to the quality of the sound. According to
>most info 128 MP3s are labelled as CD quality. From experience I would
>suggest you use at least 160. 160 provides a fair increase in quality for a
>small size increase. That's not too say I can tell the difference easily
>between 128 and 160 but I'm convinced it's there. One of the main
>differences is 160 has much better stereo than 128. Most of my MP3s are in
>160 and I find them to be of highly acceptable quality. I rarely if ever
>notice a major difference between 160 and CD. Cutoff is what is going to
>butcher the quality of your MP3s. Cutoff is largely determined by the
>encoder you use. DO NOT use the Xing 1.0 codec it has horrible cutoff. Go
>for the Fraunhofer Professional codec or for speed the new Xing Codec
>included in Audio Catalyst, it is fast and of fair quality).
>
>In terms of soundcard it shouldn't matter too much. There will be a
decrease
>in quality of course but you are unlikely to notice it. My friend has an
>SB16 which ain't exactly high quality yet he is able to pick the cutoff of
a
>given MP3 by ear. Thus, I would suggest the SB16 is high enough quality (if
>you can ever use quality and SB16 in the same sentence) for MP3 playback.
>
>If sound card quality is an issue then I would suggest you don't use MP3 as
>if the difference between 2 low end soundcards bothers you, the difference
>between MP3 and CD will almost certainly bother you.
>
>Tom.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Steve Ridley <stever@INSNET.COM.AU>
>Subject: Re: [OT] sound cards, spdif, etc
>
>
>> I would like to use a PC to play MP3. Is there a sound card that is
better
>> suited for this purpose. I am aware that MP3 is 16 bit and sub-CD
quality.
>I
>> just wondered if there are sound cards and sound cards. Even at this
>> distance from professional quality.
>